Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Day 1: Vote Fraud Already in Florida?

Intentionally or not, according to this post by Lawyers Democracy Fund, election officials in Miami-Dade County in Florida are “increasing the election's vulnerability” to vote fraud:
Sources tell LDF that the poll workers, on orders from the Supervisor’s office, are now erroneously informing early voters to keep the mail ballot instead of returning it to the possession of the Elections Office.  This procedure is in direction violation of Florida Election Code Section 101.69, and there is already canvass evidence that that some voters who early voted have also attempted to vote twice by mail balloting.
The attachment linked above also includes more troubling information.  Eight absentee ballots (called vote by mail in Florida) were rejected because the voter is deceased.  While much like winning Powerball, it is technically possible that the person received the vote by mail ballot, voted, mailed it, died, and the county received and processed the death record, it seems unlikely.  What seems more likely is eight dead people's ballots were “voted” by someone else.  It is great that the Miami-Dade Supervisor of Elections caught these but how many others were missed?  Especially in light of the increasing vulnerability in Florida by such actions as returning mail in ballots to those who vote in person.

Most importantly, who is trying to vote in the name of the dead?    

Friday, October 21, 2016

A Great Justice, Ignored Because of his Race

The National Museum of African American History and Culture is the only national museum devoted exclusively to the documentation of African American life, history, and culture. It was established by Act of Congress in 2003, following decades of efforts to promote and highlight the contributions of African Americans.
Despite this, the Museum completely ignores the contributions of Justice Clarence Thomas, who ironically is celebrating 25 years on the bench this year:  
Sunday is the 25th anniversary of Clarence Thomas being sworn in as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. From his beginnings in Pin Point, Ga., where he lived in a shanty without indoor plumbing during the Jim Crow era, he has become the longest-serving black justice on the nation’s highest court. He emerged dignified from an undignified Senate confirmation and went on to produce a body of jurisprudence that has been praised by constitutional scholars across the ideological spectrum. But because he’s a black man who challenges liberal orthodoxy, his legacy has often been minimized.
His is a story that should be celebrated by all Americans. That it isn’t is a travesty.
As RNLA Member Mark Poletta details, Justice Thomas should be ranked as a great Justice regardless of his race but isn’t, in part because of his race:
Of Thomas’s approach, SCOTUSBlog’s Tom Goldstein, a well-regarded Supreme Court practitioner, says: “I disagree profoundly with Justice Thomas’s views on many questions,” but if “the measure of a Justice’s greatness is his contribution of new and thoughtful perspectives that enlarge the debate, then Justice Thomas is now our greatest Justice.”
Mainly, though, it’s that Thomas, throughout his career, never wavered from a set of principles that many liberals don’t think a black man can legitimately hold. He believes in individual rights, not group rights, a view enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. He opposes racial preferences both because they are bad policy and because they have no basis in the Constitution. Thomas held those views long before he arrived on the court, but they have been powerfully expressed in many of his opinions.
Thank you, Justice Thomas, for 25 years of faithful service to our country.  We will celebrate your career, even if liberals ignore your accomplishments. 

Thursday, October 20, 2016

Trump vs. Clinton on Constitution, Supreme Court, and Nature of Rights

In last night's final presidential debate, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton debated the role of the Supreme Court and the interpretation of the Constitution and particularly addressed the issues of Second Amendment rights and abortion.  As in the past, Clinton articulated a judicial philosophy that advances a political agenda with no regard to the Constitution, laws, or even regulations:
CLINTON: . . . And I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people, not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy. For me, that means that we need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of women's rights, on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community, that will stand up and say no to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system. [I]t is important that we not reverse marriage equality, that we not reverse Roe v. Wade, that we stand up against Citizens United, we stand up for the rights of people in the workplace, that we stand up and basically say: The Supreme Court should represent all of us. 
That's how I see the court, and the kind of people that I would be looking to nominate to the court would be in the great tradition of standing up to the powerful, standing up on behalf of our rights as Americans. . . .
In contrast, Trump spoke of his respect for the Constitution and interpreting it according to its text:
TRUMP: . . . We need a Supreme Court that in my opinion is going to uphold the Second Amendment, and all amendments, but the Second Amendment, which is under absolute siege. I believe if my opponent should win this race, which I truly don't think will happen, we will have a Second Amendment which will be a very, very small replica of what it is right now. But I feel that it's absolutely important that we uphold, because of the fact that it is under such trauma. 
I feel that the justices that I am going to appoint -- and I've named 20 of them -- the justices that I'm going to appoint will be pro-life. They will have a conservative bent. They will be protecting the Second Amendment. They are great scholars in all cases, and they're people of tremendous respect. They will interpret the Constitution the way the founders wanted it interpreted. And I believe that's very, very important. 
I don't think we should have justices appointed that decide what they want to hear. It's all about the Constitution of -- of -- and so important, the Constitution the way it was meant to be. And those are the people that I will appoint.
After an extended discussion of the Second Amendment and D.C. v. Heller, the discussion turned to abortion rights and overturning Roe v. Wade:
TRUMP: Well, if [overturning Roe v. Wade] would happen, because I am pro-life, and I will be appointing pro-life judges, I would think that that will go back to the individual states . . . and the states will then make a determination. 
. . . 
CLINTON: Well, I strongly support Roe v. Wade, which guarantees a constitutional right to a woman to make the most intimate, most difficult, in many cases, decisions about her health care that one can imagine. . . . Roe v. Wade very clearly sets out that there can be regulations on abortion so long as the life and the health of the mother are taken into account. And when I voted [against the ban on partial-birth abortion] as a senator, I did not think that that was the case. . . . 
TRUMP: Well, I think it's terrible. If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby. . . .  [I]t's not OK with me, because based on what she's saying, and based on where she's going, and where she's been, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month on the final day. And that's not acceptable. . . .
The contrast between the two presidential candidates' views of the Constitution and the nature of rights was very clear last night.  For Clinton, rights are created out of whole cloth by unaccountable judges and extend only to those persons the judges approve - certainly not to the unborn.  For Trump, rights are inherent--not created by government officials--and are recorded in the Constitution, and judges should seek to interpret the text of the Constitution in deciding cases.

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Clinton Campaign Chairman and Chief Strategist Support Photo Voter ID

Are the Clinton Campaign Chairman and Chief Strategist horrible racists bringing back Jim Crow laws?   I don’t think so.  But I do think they told the truth about photo ID--which they can support in certain instances--in emails to each other revealed by wikileaks.

Two excerpts are below.  First from Joel Benenson, strategist to Obama’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns, and Chief Strategist to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign:
I do think we should explore ways to Co-opt GOP's argument for photo ID which has enormous appeal. Even among some Dem voters.
Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta replied supporting Photo ID to vote:  
On the picture ID, the one thing I have thought of in that space is that if you show up on Election Day with a drivers license with a picture, attest that you are a citizen, you have a right to vote in Federal elections.
This completely puts the lie to the Democrat argument that photo ID is racist.  Unless you believe top officials of the Clinton campaign team are racist. 

It further shows how the attacks on voter ID laws are really political.  Both an effort to turn a losing issue into a winning issue and to scare minorities into voting for Democrats. 

Marc Elias and everyone else should immediately withdraw all their lawsuits against voter ID as it is not racist or discriminatory according to their parties' campaign leaders.

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Vote Fraud Deniers Won't Even Define the Words

Justin Levitt is often cited by the media for his study finding only 31 cases of vote fraud.  He is a recognized liberal vote fraud denier and the former counsel for Americans Coming Together, a parent group of ACORN that was disbanded after a huge FEC fine.  Leavitt defines vote fraud as:

Allegations of voter fraud—someone sneaking into the polls to cast an illicit vote . . .

On the right is someone who has researched vote fraud and groups like ACORN, Matthew Vandum, who defines vote fraud as:

Before we go further, let’s define voter fraud: It is unlawful interference with the electoral process in an effort to bring about a desired result. . . . It refers to fraudulent voting, impersonation, intimidation, perjury, voter registration fraud, forgery, counterfeiting, bribery, destroying already cast ballots, and a multitude of crimes related to the electoral process.

Levitt comes from a background of fraud and defines voter fraud very narrowly.  Vandum comes from a background of research and defines it broadly.  Along with his partisanship, Levitt's narrow definition explains part of the reason Levitt ignores and minimizes vote fraud.  Let’s just say we are glad the law agrees with Vandum.   

Monday, October 17, 2016

The Left Continues to Resist Efforts to Fight Voter Fraud

Today, Joanne Young published an op-ed on the homepage of National Review OnlineHere's an excerpt:
Inaccurate voter rolls also exponentially increase the potential for fraud. Did you hear the one about the deceased World War II veterans who just registered to vote? How about the one where 40 days before the election, a thousand noncitizens were found on the voter rolls in Virginia? Or the dead dozen who cast their ballots in Colorado? 
With disasters like these, it’s no wonder that citizens are eager to monitor our monitors. Our request: Do your job. Under federal law, election officials must keep voter rolls up to date.
If you have five minutes, make sure to read the full article.

Thursday, October 13, 2016

Congress Shall Make No Law: Protecting the First Amendment from Attack

The Heritage Foundation held an event on today to address the “All-Out Assault on the First Amendment.”  Hosted by Hans von Spakovsky, the panel was comprised of distinguished public policy and research professionals like Christina Hoff Sommers, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute; RNLA Advisory Council Member Robert Alt, President, Buckeye Institute; John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service, Chapman University Fowler School of Law, and Senior Fellow, The Claremont Institute; and RNLA Advisory Council Member Cleta Mitchell, Partner, Foley & Lardner LLP.

The discussion started with a profound statement from Ms. Mitchell, that the 5 most beautiful words in the English language are: “Congress shall make no law… “

Ms. Mitchell further stated that the left is turning that phrase on its head, and the First Amendment is being used to protect the government from the people and not vice versa. This is the exact opposite of the Founders' purpose for including that clause. She uses the composition of the Federal Election Commission to discuss a troubling example. The Commission is supposed to be a bipartisan group of individuals, yet prior to Hans von Spakovsky, Brad Smith, and Don McGahn becoming Commissioners, there regularly was one Republican who seemed to be conservative in name only and continuously voted with the Democrats. This issue compromised the integrity of the Commission. Additionally, she added comments about the recent scandal with the IRS targeting of conservatives, noting Commissioner Koskinen’s long history of solely supporting liberal candidates and the implicit bias that comes along with that support; the John Doe investigation in Wisconsin; and the enforcement of political speech codes in Montana.

Robert Alt spoke from personal experience as his conservative organization was targeted and audited by the IRS. Mr. Alt thinks preventing the attack on the First Amendment can only be done through fighting back against speech suppressive activity. He brought up the examples of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) receiving a subpoena related to its climate change research and how the state of California was requiring charities to turn over their Schedule B donor disclosures to the state with very little assurance that that information would be kept confidential. CEI fought back in the legal courts and the courts of public opinion against the subpoena that sought information including the donors to the organization. In this instance, free speech won.

The rest of the discussants added commentary on free speech on college campuses and the free exercise of religion and how those are both under attack as well.

All panelists stressed how pivotal this election is and further noted that citizens considering a candidate that supports individuals and policies which strip constitutional rights away, means we all lose in the end.