Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why GOP won't challenge Voter Fraud
Fellowship of the Minds ^ | 11/16/2013 | Chrisnj

Posted on 11/16/2012 8:43:43 PM PST by chrisnj

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101 next last
Beware, your head will explode after reading this. Please spread the words. The dems have a license to commit voter fraud!
1 posted on 11/16/2012 8:43:49 PM PST by chrisnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: chrisnj

Because they’re izod-wearing, wussified country-club, girly men.


2 posted on 11/16/2012 8:45:46 PM PST by 3Fingas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chrisnj

As much as I like slapping the Republicants for their perfidy to their oaths, I won’t play the blogpimp game. Post your entire essay here, or go on ignore.


3 posted on 11/16/2012 8:49:05 PM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chrisnj

LTC West never heard about it!


4 posted on 11/16/2012 8:49:47 PM PST by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, a Matter of Fact, Not a Matter of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chrisnj

” - - - The Republican Party made an agreement 30 years ago with the Democrat Party NOT to ___ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ , ALWAYS!

That was then, and this is NOW!


5 posted on 11/16/2012 8:53:37 PM PST by Graewoulf ((Traitor John Roberts' Obama"care" violates Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND the U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chrisnj

You can’t possibly believe that crap! Can you even imagine how many politicians would tell them to blow it out their a**?


6 posted on 11/16/2012 8:55:04 PM PST by loboinok (Gun control is hitting what you aim at!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
I read some of that blog. I don't give a damn. If votes have to be recounted, recount them. Surely some republican votes can be found in the back rooms or in the back of cars.
7 posted on 11/16/2012 8:57:41 PM PST by Bronzy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: loboinok

You dont know the history at all do you?


8 posted on 11/16/2012 8:58:19 PM PST by HANG THE EXPENSE (Life's tough.It's tougher when you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 3Fingas
Because they’re izod-wearing, wussified country-club, girly men.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yep! That alligator on their left teat is their green badge of courage.

9 posted on 11/16/2012 9:00:40 PM PST by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: chrisnj

So they each made an agreement to look the other way on fraud and corruption. Let me Think. Yup- It sounds right. From what I have observed then that policy applies to much more than vote fraud.


10 posted on 11/16/2012 9:02:58 PM PST by Revel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chrisnj
I suspect someone like Mark Levin would have a field day with this

Even Rush and Hannity are starting to talk more about the fraud of the loss.

Let's get this in to Drudge and to Greta van Susteren.

FReegards!


11 posted on 11/16/2012 9:03:32 PM PST by Agamemnon (Darwinism is the glue that holds liberalism together)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chrisnj

OOPS! Thought there was an article here. Oh well.


12 posted on 11/16/2012 9:10:32 PM PST by MestaMachine (TREASON!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chrisnj

There is now compelling and undeniable evidence that MAJOR vote fraud had been perpetrated in the November 2012 Election. See FOTM’s posts chronicling the extensive pervasive fraud by going to our “2012 Election” page below our FOTM masthead, and click on those post links colored neon green.

But our screaming and hollering are to no avail. No one is listening to us. Not even the Republican Party.

Here’s why….

The Republican Party made an agreement 30 years ago with the Democrat Party NOT to ensure voting integrity and NOT to pursue suspected vote fraud.

Yes. You read it correctly.

In fact, legally the GOP cannot ensure voting integrity, nor can it prevent vote fraud.

Here’s the astounding reason, which is kept from the American people.

PolitiJim writes for Gulag Bound, November 13, 2012, that during the weekly True the Vote webcast, Catherine Engelbrecht related a meeting she had with Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), asking what the GOP would do about voter integrity. The answer?

Nothing. They aren’t legally able to.

This all goes back to a lawsuit 31 years ago, in 1981. The following is compiled from an account on The Judicial View, a legal website specializing in court decision research and alerts, and from “Democratic National Committee v Republican National Committee,” Case No. 09-4615.

In 1981, during the gubernatorial election in New Jersey (NJ), a lawsuit was brought against the RNC, the NJ Republican State Committee (RSC), and three individuals (John A. Kelly, Ronald Kaufman, and Alex Hurtado), accusing them of violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1973, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

The lawsuit was brought by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the NJ Democratic State Committee (DSC), and two individuals (Virginia L. Peggins and Lynette Monroe).

The lawsuit alleged that:

The RNC and RSC targeted minority voters in New Jersey in an effort to intimidate them.
The RNC created a voter challenge list by mailing sample ballots to individuals in precincts with a high percentage of racial or ethnic minority registered voters. Then the RNC put the names of individuals whose postcards were returned as undeliverable on a list of voters to challenge at the polls.
The RNC enlisted the help of off-duty sheriffs and police officers with “National Ballot Security Task Force” armbands, to intimidate voters by standing at polling places in minority precincts during voting. Some of the officers allegedly wore firearms in a visible manner.
To settle the lawsuit, in 1982, the RNC and RSC entered into an agreement or Consent Decree, which is national in scope, limiting the RNC’s ability to engage or assist in voter fraud prevention unless the RNC obtains the court’s approval in advance. The following is what the RNC and RSC, in the Consent Decree, agreed they would do:

[I]n the future, in all states and territories of the United States:

(a) comply with all applicable state and federal laws protecting the rights of duly qualified citizens to vote for the candidate(s) of their choice;

(b) in the event that they produce or place any signs which are part of ballot security activities, cause said signs to disclose that they are authorized or sponsored by the party committees and any other committees participating with the party committees;

(c) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting their agents or employees to remove or deface any lawfully printed and placed campaign materials or signs;

(d) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting their employees to campaign within restricted polling areas or to interrogate prospective voters as to their qualifications to vote prior to their entry to a polling place;

(e) refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the actual conduct of, such activities there and where a purpose or significant effect of such activities is to deter qualified voters from voting; and the conduct of such activities disproportionately in or directed toward districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations shall be considered relevant evidence of the existence of such a factor and purpose;

(f) refrain from having private personnel deputized as law enforcement personnel in connection with ballot security activities.

The RNC also agreed that the RNC, its agents, servants, and employees would be bound by the Decree, “whether acting directly or indirectly through other party committees.”

As modified in 1987, the Consent Decree defined “ballot security activities” to mean “ballot integrity, ballot security or other efforts to prevent or remedy vote fraud.”

Since 1982, that Consent Decree has been renewed every year by the original judge, Carter appointee District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise, now 88 years old. Long retired, Debevoise comes back yearly for the sole purpose of renewing his 1982 order for another year.

U.S. District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise

In 2010, the RNC unsuccessfully appealed “to vacate or modify” the Consent Decree in “Democratic National Committee v Republican National Committee,” Case No. 09-4615 (C.A. 3, Mar. 8, 2012). (I paid The Judicial Review $10 for the PDF of Case No. 09-4615 and uploaded the 59-page document to FOTM’s media library. To read Case No. 09-4615, click here!)

This is a summary of the appeals judge’s ruling, filed on March 8, 2012:

In 1982, the Republican National Committee (“RNC”) and the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) entered into a consent decree (the “Decree” or “Consent Decree”), which is national in scope, limiting the RNC’s ability to engage or assist in voter fraud prevention unless the RNC obtains the court’s approval in advance. The RNC appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denying, in part, the RNC’s Motion to Vacate or Modify the Consent Decree. Although the District Court declined to vacate the Decree, it did make modifications to the Decree. The RNC argues that the District Court abused its discretion by modifying the Decree as it did and by declining to vacate the Decree. For the following reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

Surprise! The judge who denied the RNC’s appeal to “vacate” the 1982 Consent Decree is an Obama appointee, Judge Joseph Greenaway, Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Judge Joseph Greenaway, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit

Guy Benson of Townhall.com points out that in last Tuesday’s election, Obama only won by 406,348 votes in 4 states:

Florida: 73,858
Ohio: 103,481
Virginia: 115,910
Colorado: 113,099
Those four states, with a collective margin of 406,348 votes for Obama, add up to 69 electoral votes. Had Romney won 407,000 or so additional votes in the right proportion in those states, he would have 275 electoral votes.

All four states showed Romney ahead in the days leading up to the election. But on November 6, Romney lost all four states by a substantial margin, all of which have precincts that inexplicably went 99% for Obama, had voter registrations that exceeded their population, and had experienced problems with voting machines.

This election was stolen by the Democrats via vote fraud. Despite all the evidence of fraud, the Republican Party has been strangely silent about it.

Now you know why.

I’ll leave you with one last, even more disturbing thought:

The RNC and DNC made their Consent Decree 30 years ago, in 1982. The agreement in effect gives a carte blanche to the Democrat Party to commit vote fraud in every voting district across America that has, in the language of the Consent Decree, “a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations.” The term “substantial proportion” is not defined.

The Democrat Party knew this 30 years ago, more than enough time to put a plan in place to identify and groom their “perfect candidate” — in the words of Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) in 2008, a “light-skinned” black Democrat who has “no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one.”

Being a black Democrat, this perfect candidate would get the support of almost all black Americans (96% in 2008!) and other racial minorities (two-thirds of Hispanics in 2008).
Being a “light-skinned” black with “no Negro dialect”, this perfect candidate would get the support of white Americans perpetually guilt-ridden about America’s original sin of slavery.
It doesn’t matter if this “perfect candidate” has dubious Constitutional eligibility to be president. They would see to it that his original birth certificate (if there is one) would never see the light of day. The same with his other documents — his passports, school and college records, draft registration, and medical records (so we’ll never know why Obama has that very long scar running from one side of his head, over the crown, to the other side).

Now, we understand the significance of the account Tom Fife wrote during the 2008 presidential campaign. Fife, a U.S. government contractor, claims that in 1992 while he was visiting Moscow, a woman with undying allegiance to Soviet Communism (the Soviet Union had recently collapsed, on December 31, 1991) told him that a black man named Barack, born of a white American woman and an African male, was being groomed by communists to be, and would be elected, President of the United States.

Now, we finally understand the cryptic remark made in May 2010, by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan: “Obama was selected before he was elected.”

In 2008, this “perfect candidate” won the presidential election. And despite his many failures in his first term, he would be reelected in 2012 for a second term via massive vote fraud. But nothing would be done about the vote fraud, because of that Consent Decree signed by the RNC 30 years ago.

The Republican Party is dead — and with it, the U.S. two-party system as well — and the sooner we voters recognize that the better.

The question that remains is whether the American Republic is also dead.

UPDATE (Nov. 16, 2012):

Since I published this post yesterday, we’ve been asking each other: “What can I/we do about this?” Here are my suggestions:

1. If you are a registered Republican, QUIT! Switch your voter registration ID to non-partisan Independent.

2. Stop donating money, not even one penny, to the GOP. Tell them why.

3. Spread the word. Please send the URL of this post (http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/why-the-gop-will-not-do-anything-about-vote-fraud/) to:


13 posted on 11/16/2012 9:14:39 PM PST by Jet Jaguar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine

See post 13.

I posted nearly all of the article.


14 posted on 11/16/2012 9:15:45 PM PST by Jet Jaguar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

I think is a bunch of BS. Kennedy stole NIxons victory and didn’t protest, it would be unseemly...Kennedy win came out of Chicago and totally he won by just 1 vote in each precient in the country....such a win shortened Kennedys life by quite a few years....


15 posted on 11/16/2012 9:17:04 PM PST by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: chrisnj
Photobucket
16 posted on 11/16/2012 9:17:24 PM PST by baddog 219
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chrisnj

Ah, the conspiracists have finally figured out that we aren’t idiots, and that they need to explain why it is that politicians aren’t fighting voter fraud.

And I guess they figure 30 years is long enough ago that nobody will be able to check them. Of course, I imagine a good number of the conspiracists weren’t born 30 years ago.

Of course, the like a good conspiracy, it has vague generalities to keep from getting tripped up in the pesky reality of details. So “the GOP” made a deal with “the Democrats” “30 years ago” (That is 1982, 2 years into the great President Ronald Reagan’s 8 year presidential term).

I’m sure the conspiracists will explain how “the GOP” did this behind Reagan’s back, so as not to smear him with this charge.

Left unexplained is how a party who can’t keep their own members from jumping ship, endorsing democrats, keeping on message for more than 5 minutes, or basically doing anything they want, somehow HAS been able to keep an entire generation of politicians both docile and quiet.

And I wonder if anybody pushing this theory has ever been involved in an actual political campaign, or actually KNOWS anybody who has actually run for office.

I doubt it. Because if they did, they would know how absurd this argument is. People who run for public office are driven to win. They spend thousands of hours, put their lives on hold. They give up their jobs. They put their lives in public for ridicule. They spend vast sums of their own money, and they hit up all their friends, family, and aquaintances for more money. They go to hundreds of meetings talking people into voting for them, into supporting them, into primary or caucus victories, just to get to the general election.

And according to the conspiracists, when they lose by a few hundred votes, and are confronted with obvious fraud that proves they should have won, these people, having invested their blood, sweat, and tears, their lives, their livelyhood, their very being into trying to win, just lay down and walk away.

That, my friend, is a fantasy you couldn’t pay people to believe. They pretend Allen West is special — but he is the norm. People don’t give up because they feel obligated to support some clandestine 30-year-old agreement that is both secret, but also dictated to every single one of thousands of politicians who run under the GOP banner every 4 years. They give up because, when they actually look at the results, they realize they lost.

And no, I didn’t read the heavily excerpted BLOG ENTRY. If you want someone to read something, post it here.


17 posted on 11/16/2012 9:18:57 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Here it is -

PolitiJim writes for Gulag Bound, November 13, 2012, that during the weekly True the Vote webcast, Catherine Engelbrecht related a meeting she had with Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), asking what the GOP would do about voter integrity. The answer?

Nothing. They aren’t legally able to.

This all goes back to a lawsuit 31 years ago, in 1981. The following is compiled from an account on The Judicial View, a legal website specializing in court decision research and alerts, and from “Democratic National Committee v Republican National Committee,” Case No. 09-4615.

In 1981, during the gubernatorial election in New Jersey (NJ), a lawsuit was brought against the RNC, the NJ Republican State Committee (RSC), and three individuals (John A. Kelly, Ronald Kaufman, and Alex Hurtado), accusing them of violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1973, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

The lawsuit was brought by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the NJ Democratic State Committee (DSC), and two individuals (Virginia L. Peggins and Lynette Monroe).

The lawsuit alleged that:

The RNC and RSC targeted minority voters in New Jersey in an effort to intimidate them.

The RNC created a voter challenge list by mailing sample ballots to individuals in precincts with a high percentage of racial or ethnic minority registered voters. Then the RNC put the names of individuals whose postcards were returned as undeliverable on a list of voters to challenge at the polls.

The RNC enlisted the help of off-duty sheriffs and police officers with “National Ballot Security Task Force” armbands, to intimidate voters by standing at polling places in minority precincts during voting. Some of the officers allegedly wore firearms in a visible manner.

To settle the lawsuit, in 1982, the RNC and RSC entered into an agreement or Consent Decree, which is national in scope, limiting the RNC’s ability to engage or assist in voter fraud prevention unless the RNC obtains the court’s approval in advance. The following is what the RNC and RSC, in the Consent Decree, agreed they would do:

[I]n the future, in all states and territories of the United States:

(a) comply with all applicable state and federal laws protecting the rights of duly qualified citizens to vote for the candidate(s) of their choice;

(b) in the event that they produce or place any signs which are part of ballot security activities, cause said signs to disclose that they are authorized or sponsored by the party committees and any other committees participating with the party committees;

(c) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting their agents or employees to remove or deface any lawfully printed and placed campaign materials or signs;

(d) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting their employees to campaign within restricted polling areas or to interrogate prospective voters as to their qualifications to vote prior to their entry to a polling place;

(e) refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the actual conduct of, such activities there and where a purpose or significant effect of such activities is to deter qualified voters from voting; and the conduct of such activities disproportionately in or directed toward districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations shall be considered relevant evidence of the existence of such a factor and purpose;

(f) refrain from having private personnel deputized as law enforcement personnel in connection with ballot security activities.

The RNC also agreed that the RNC, its agents, servants, and employees would be bound by the Decree, “whether acting directly or indirectly through other party committees.”

As modified in 1987, the Consent Decree defined “ballot security activities” to mean “ballot integrity, ballot security or other efforts to prevent or remedy vote fraud.”

Since 1982, that Consent Decree has been renewed every year by the original judge, Carter appointee District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise, now 88 years old. Long retired, Debevoise comes back for the sole purpose of renewing his 1981 order for another year.

U.S. District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise

In 2010, the RNC unsuccessfully appealed “to vacate or modify” the Consent Decree in “Democratic National Committee v Republican National Committee,” Case No. 09-4615 (C.A. 3, Mar. 8, 2012). (I paid The Judicial Review $10 for the PDF of Case No. 09-4615 and uploaded the 59-page document to FOTM’s media library. To read Case No. 09-4615, click here!)

This is a summary of the appeals judge’s ruling, filed on March 8, 2012:

In 1982, the Republican National Committee (“RNC”) and the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) entered into a consent decree (the “Decree” or “Consent Decree”), which is national in scope, limiting the RNC’s ability to engage or assist in voter fraud prevention unless the RNC obtains the court’s approval in advance. The RNC appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denying, in part, the RNC’s Motion to Vacate or Modify the Consent Decree. Although the District Court declined to vacate the Decree, it did make modifications to the Decree. The RNC argues that the District Court abused its discretion by modifying the Decree as it did and by declining to vacate the Decree. For the following reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

Surprise! The judge who denied the RNC’s appeal to “vacate” the 1982 Consent Decree is an Obama appointee, Judge Joseph Greenaway, Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Judge Joseph Greenaway, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit

Guy Benson of Townhall.com points out that in last Tuesday’s election, Obama only won by 406,348 votes in 4 states:

Florida: 73,858
Ohio: 103,481
Virginia: 115,910
Colorado: 113,099

Those four states, with a collective margin of 406,348 votes for Obama, add up to 69 electoral votes. Had Romney won 407,000 or so additional votes in the right proportion in those states, he would have 275 electoral votes.

All four states showed Romney ahead in the days leading up to the election. But on November 6, Romney lost all four states by a substantial margin, all of which have precincts that inexplicably went 99% for Obama, had voter registrations that exceeded their population, and had experienced problems with voting machines.

This election was stolen by the Democrats via vote fraud. Despite all the evidence of fraud, the Republican Party has been strangely silent about it.

Now you know why.
I’ll leave you with one last, even more disturbing thought:

The RNC and DNC made their Consent Decree 30 years ago, in 1982. The agreement in effect gives a carte blanche to the Democrat Party to commit vote fraud in every voting district across America that has, in the language of the Consent Decree, “a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations.” The term “substantial proportion” is not defined.

The Democrat Party knew this 30 years ago, more than enough time to put a plan in place to identify and groom their “perfect candidate” — in the words of Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) in 2008, a “light-skinned” black Democrat who has “no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one.”

Being a black Democrat, this perfect candidate would get the support of almost all black Americans (96% in 2008!) and other racial minorities (two-thirds of Hispanics in 2008).

Being a “light-skinned” black with “no Negro dialect”, this perfect candidate would get the support of white Americans perpetually guilt-ridden about America’s original sin of slavery.

It doesn’t matter if this “perfect candidate” has dubious Constitutional eligibility to be president. They would see to it that his original birth certificate (if there is one) would never see the light of day. The same with his other documents — his passports, school and college records, draft registration, and medical records (so we’ll never know why Obama has that very long scar from one side of his head to the other.)

Now, we understand the significance of the account Tom Fife wrote during the 2008 presidential campaign. Fife, a U.S. government contractor, claims that in 1992 while he was visiting Moscow, a woman with undying allegiance to Soviet Communism (the Soviet Union had recently collapsed, on December 31, 1991) told him that a black man named Barack, born of a white American woman and an African male, was being groomed by communists to be, and would be elected, President of the United States.

Now, we finally understand the cryptic remark made in May 2010, by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan: “Obama was selected before he was elected.”

In 2008, this “perfect candidate” won the presidential election. And despite his many failures in his first term, he would be reelected in 2012 for a second term via massive vote fraud. But nothing would be done about the vote fraud, because of that Consent Decree signed by the RNC 30 years ago.

The Republican Party is dead — and with it, the U.S. two-party system as well — and the sooner we voters recognize that the better.

The question that remains is whether the American Republic is also dead.


18 posted on 11/16/2012 9:20:47 PM PST by chrisnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: chrisnj

DO IT ANYWAY!!!


19 posted on 11/16/2012 9:24:32 PM PST by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

I would be more worried at this stage that computerized voting is able to track a ballot with a voter name. If they are so bold as to commit preplanned voter fraud in an organized coordinated fashion, they will be tempted to also target their adversarial voters after they have more power.

They will not be satiated with illegally winning the election. They will want more.


20 posted on 11/16/2012 9:24:43 PM PST by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine

I think that the link to a ruling is better than an article.


21 posted on 11/16/2012 9:25:46 PM PST by Hieronymus ( (It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged. --G.K. Chesterton))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: chrisnj

Okay, after reading the essay I am left saying that a lawsuit bake then cannot make law for the present. IF Pribus said the court case prevented challenging this election, he is blowing smoke up someone’s butt. The Bush v Gore case should be a clue ...


22 posted on 11/16/2012 9:28:30 PM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: goat granny

“I think this is a bunch of BS. Kennedy stood Nixon’s victory and didn’t protest, it would be unseemly”

You are off topic. This article is about why the Pub party doesn’t challenge voters before they vote, not why they don’t challenge after the elections. It sounds a bit farfetched, but stands to reason. A white poll watcher sneezing in a district with more than a couple black people can be accused of suppressing the franchise of minorities easily enough for federal judges to buy it.


23 posted on 11/16/2012 9:28:35 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

“it has vague generalities to keep from getting tripped up in the pesky reality of details.”

To be fair the article cites a specific court case and the binding consent decree by which it was supposedly settled. It even showed a picture of the judge who shot down revision of the agreement. So it’s not as if he’s alleging a private handshake over cigars and brandy in some gentleman’s club.


24 posted on 11/16/2012 9:34:28 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

You obviously didn’t read the article, and as such should be informed about whether or not the parties would walk away from close tallied with hard evidence of fraud. It’s about challenging voters beforehand, not challengning results after the polls close.


25 posted on 11/16/2012 9:37:01 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

“IF Privies said the court case prevented challenging thus election, he is blowing smoke up someone’s Burt. The Bush v Tire case should be a clue”

This article is about challenging voters before they vote, not challenging results, forcing recounts until you get a number you like, or squabbling over intent.

“a lawsuit bake then cannot make law for the present”

Consent decrees are binding. I don’t know if they last forever, but it’s the same two parties and if the agreement is still valid, or ever operated how thus article asserts in the first place, then old lawsuits can make laws for the present.


26 posted on 11/16/2012 9:42:40 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: chrisnj

I say a big BS. I say that the GOP are not bound by a consent decree 31 years ago if there is even such a thing. That is all baloney. Give it up.


27 posted on 11/16/2012 9:42:40 PM PST by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
I would be more worried at this stage that computerized voting is able to track a ballot with a voter name. If they are so bold as to commit preplanned voter fraud in an organized coordinated fashion, they will be tempted to also target their adversarial voters after they have more power.

This was my interest in the all voting-by-mail of WA and OR. The objections I've read mostly fixate on lost ballots or who is actually doing the voting, but my concern was of a comprehensive government database of who votes for whom.

Not that they would formulate a priority code for obamacare or IRS audits or building permits or traffic tickets or no knock raids or anything like that.

28 posted on 11/16/2012 9:42:49 PM PST by Ezekiel (The Obama-nation began with the Inauguration of Desolation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Hieronymus

And I think that individual candidates should view this ruling for exactly what it is...an absurdity that defies common sense.


29 posted on 11/16/2012 9:44:44 PM PST by MestaMachine (TREASON!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: chrisnj

Ronald Kaufman?

Would that be the same Republican political consultant Ron Kaufman who was on Romney’s team? (Long-time MA political operative).


30 posted on 11/16/2012 9:45:06 PM PST by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Sorry I don’t know some of you don’t like to read at the links.
I thought I would save this website band-width by not posting the entire article.

So some of you think the reason the losers don’t challenge voter fraud is because they believe they have lost by looking at the numbers.
That could be so.
Unfortunately the numbers this year tell a different story - it tells of rampant voter fraud, at least at the battleground states.
We don’t know why there are so few challenges from the GOP losers.
But now we know why the RNC is so silent!
Could it be it hurts so much that we would rather deny it - call it conspiracy, unbelievable, ‘so-what?’....

We will never right the wrong if we don’t fight.
First we have to face the reality - the obama culture is a fertile ground for voter fraud.
We all find it unbelievable that the GOP losers just take it so silently.
There must be reasons - brutal lamestream media attacks, no support for them from their own party, no money, exhaustion, too afraid to be labelled ‘sore-losers’....

You have the right to doubt this.

Don’t you owe it to yourself to check it out and evaluate if something can be done about this?


31 posted on 11/16/2012 9:53:04 PM PST by chrisnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chrisnj

So what your saying is........ only a moron would vote?......


32 posted on 11/16/2012 10:04:00 PM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chrisnj

Even if the story is true, I don’t know why independent groups couldn’t bring up accusations of vote fraud.

Surely at least mailing post cards to voters’ addresses is allowed?


33 posted on 11/16/2012 10:07:37 PM PST by scrabblehack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: chrisnj

!


34 posted on 11/16/2012 10:09:40 PM PST by skinkinthegrass (Anger a Conservative by telling a lie; Anger a Liberal by telling the truth....RWR 8-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

IF that court case was binding, why is it not cited to stop voter ID requirements when they are raised by a state when Republicants are in control? In Tennessee, I have to show my photo ID and sign a book every time I go to vote before they will escort me to a machine. It has not always been that way, and in fact I think the changes to the present system are post 1987.


35 posted on 11/16/2012 10:11:14 PM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: chrisnj

Yes, and how many secretaries of state are democrats who, with the push of a button, can easily tweek results. I don’t trust any of them! A bunch of crooks and cronies. Our country has gone to the dogs.


36 posted on 11/16/2012 10:14:45 PM PST by Saundra Duffy ( For victory & freedom!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chrisnj

By flipping votes cast for Romney, and cancelling votes cast for Romney, and voting Dead people ballots for Obama, the numbers you posted for the particular states can be cut to half that many fraudulent votes cast to overcome the Romney trunout and democrap reduced turnout..


37 posted on 11/16/2012 10:16:04 PM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: chrisnj

“The article is inaccurate. The Consent Agreement between the RNC and the DNC is that neither can Monitor Poll stations MEANING they cannot send/be poll watchers. The Candidate’s Campaign or a 3rd Party CAN send poll watchers.
I spoke with the GOP Legal Department on this item specifically – so PLEASE – call them yourselves (the legal department) AND clean up the propaganda as we do NOT want to be like the Left. REMEMBER we are the party of FACTS.”

http://gulagbound.com/36046/no-joke-the-gop-can-not-legally-help-stop-vote-fraud/


38 posted on 11/16/2012 10:17:32 PM PST by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
If that court case was binding, why is it not cited to stop voter ID requirements when they are raised by a state when Republicants are in control?

Because the RNC is not the State that enacted the law such a binding agreement is not applicable -- IOW, it would be like you arguing that because Golden Corral gives food to veterans on Veteran's Day that the bank should give money to veterans on Veteran's Day.

39 posted on 11/16/2012 10:18:00 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

I said I didn’t read the blog. If there is an article, someone should actually post a link to the article in a thread. This is a thread pimping a blog post, which is clear because it’s a bloggers entry, and the blog is excerpted.

I don’t excerpt my comments, because i want people to read them. If someone wants us to read their words, they should post them here.


40 posted on 11/16/2012 10:19:13 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

“why is it not cited to stop voter ID requirements when they are raised by a state when Republicans are in control?”

The RNC is bound by the agreement, if in fact there is one, not individual Republican officials. Republicans represent the electorate in office, not the national committee.


41 posted on 11/16/2012 10:20:30 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

I was referring to the blog ost as an article. I don’t remember if there are links. Iif this case is real I should think it’d be easy enough to search for it.

“This is a thread pimping blog post”

That doesn’t bother me. Blog pimpage as a whole is annoying, but in individual cases I can device whether or not I want to read on. You are free to ignore it on principle. Just be careful debunking arguments you haven’t read, for they might be a different than you imagine.


42 posted on 11/16/2012 10:27:12 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

I was referring to the blog ost as an article. I don’t remember if there are links. Iif this case is real I should think it’d be easy enough to search for it.

“This is a thread pimping blog post”

That doesn’t bother me. Blog pimpage as a whole is annoying, but in individual cases I can decide whether or not I want to read on. You are free to ignore it on principle. Just be careful debunking arguments you haven’t read, for they might be a different than you imagine.


43 posted on 11/16/2012 10:27:25 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

“The article is inaccurate. The Consent Agreement...is that neither can Monitor Poll stations MEANING they cannot send/be poll watchers.”

That’s what I understood the article to be saying. What did you think it averred?


44 posted on 11/16/2012 10:31:22 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: scrabblehack

They can and do. Nothing in this article says different.


45 posted on 11/16/2012 10:36:11 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

Since you questioned this, I went ahead and read the blog.

First, the consent decree doesn’t result in what the blog claims. It prevents voter fraud prevention activities that are targeted at minority populations.

It has nothing to do with challenging voter fraud, or preventing voter fraud, on a national basis.

There is nothing in the decree that prevents the GOP from actually dealing with cases of fraud — it is about running fraud detection programs, not going after fraud.

Second, the blog makes use of other blogs as if they are sources of information. This is typical of blogs, they feed on themselves without much concern for facts.

For example, the blog entry claims that Romney was “leading” in 4 states leading up to the election, that he ended up losing. But that is false.

The RCP average for Virginia was Obama +0.3, with only one Romney poll in the last week; the only reason Obama wasn’t further ahead was an outlier +5 romney poll two weeks before the election.

Ohio had Obama +2.9; he only won by +1.9, so Romney actually did BETTER than the polls suggested he would.

Colorado had Obama +1.9. He did much better than that, but again, the blog falsely claims Romney was leading in this state.

Florida did have Romney leading in the RCP average, by 1.5, he lost by 0.9, but that was within the polling margin of error.

So, when a blog claims that Romney was leading in 4 states, but actually Obama was leading in three of those 4 states, it should be a clue that the blog isn’t really dealing with facts.

Other than that, the blog just makes blind claims using numbers as if they are facts. “only 407,000 votes” would get Romney elected, they say, as if that is a small amount. As someone pointed out, Bush would have lost twice if you simply switched a fourth of that number to his opponent.

And the blog cites the “99% obama precincts” as if that shows fraud, when it just shows a historical FACT that these precincts vote almost entirely democrat. In other blogs where they actually cite individual precincts, you can look them up, and see how they did historically.

I did so for one precinct in Richmond Virginia, and found that McCain did no better, and even McDonnell in winning big couldn’t break 10 votes.

I also showed how in 2008, there were dozens of precincts in Ohio where McCain got less than 10 votes. There are entire areas of inner cities that have nothing but people who live off the government and vote the way they are told by their benefactors, which is straight democrat. Richmond didn’t even have a republican running for Congress one year.

The blog also claims that districts had registrations that exceeded their population. That is simply a repetition of a misunderstanding of fact. There was a census in 2010. There were places where registrations exceeded the voting age population found in the 2010 census. But that doesn’t indicate more registrations than actual voters.

For example, in most states students are allowed to register to vote at their colleges, but the census would count those students in their home states. Also, people move, people come of age to vote.

The ludicrous thing is claiming that nobody would notice, and nobody would investigate, if there was an actual precinct where the known adult population was less than the registrations. There is no law or decree that would prevent either party from examining the voter registration roles and determining after the election whether those registrations represented actual people in the district.

And if that isn’t enough to give thoughtful conservatives pause over this blog, I’ll close with this quote from the blog:

” Fife, a U.S. government contractor, claims that in 1992 while he was visiting Moscow, a woman with undying allegiance to Soviet Communism (the Soviet Union had recently collapsed, on December 31, 1991) told him that a black man named Barack, born of a white American woman and an African male, was being groomed by communists to be, and would be elected, President of the United States.”

Yep, manchurian candidate Barack Obama, who apparently, according to the blog, had a lobotomy: “we’ll never know why Obama has that very long scar running from one side of his head, over the crown, to the other side” (maybe the blog writer thinks Obama had his brain transplanted with the preserved cranium of Lenin or something).


46 posted on 11/16/2012 10:47:41 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
Just be careful debunking arguments you haven’t read, for they might be a different than you imagine.

In the very short description that the blogger gave for his blog entry, he said:

Why GOP won't challenge Voter Fraud.

It's not my fault that the blogger misrepresented his blog entry. The consent decree doesn't keep the GOP from challenging voter fraud. It doesn't even keep them from pursuing it.

I based my comments on what the blogger excerpted, since the excerpt should contain the meat of the article.

Having wasted my time reading the blog, I found nothing to change my opinion about what the blog was trying unsuccessfully to argue.

I don't care if people pimp blogs. I don't have to click the link, and I rarely do if they excerpt. And if they aren't smart enough to put good excerpt information in their threads, that's their loss when I comment on what they excerpted.

If the blogger wants me to comment on his entire thought, he can post it here.

47 posted on 11/16/2012 10:56:33 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
Well....I trust Townhall.com over the comments of an anonymous Internet poster.
48 posted on 11/16/2012 11:03:40 PM PST by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

“In the very short description that the blotter gave...he said: ‘Why GOP won’t challenge voter fraud.’”

Which is what the article was about, only before or during, not after elections.

“It’s not my fault that the blotter misrepresented his blog entry”

Not misrepresented, just incompletely explained. But then headlines never tell everything. You say it’s misleading because you got the wrong idea. I did not share your experience. If the blog pimp is at fault, at least you can admit your fault was not reading the article and commenting on it anyway. Which doesn’t necessarily matter unless you guess wrong.

“I found nothing to change my opinion about what the blog was trying to argue.”

But at least now you know what it was arguing.


49 posted on 11/16/2012 11:06:07 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

For the record, I never said the blot is correct. I hadn’t heard of this case before tonight. My gut tells me the RNC would agree to anything to avoid minority vote suppression lawsuits. But everything you say might be true. I was just annoyed by the fact that the thread and the posts were at cross-purposes.


50 posted on 11/16/2012 11:11:08 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson