Expect To See More Cases Like This Before November

Voter fraud is a problem in America. As more states are becoming aware of voter fraud, they are beginning to take action against it–requiring voter identification or keeping a better watch on voter registration rolls.

The Blaze posted a story today about some recent action taken in Philadelphia:

The Indiana-based Public Interest Legal Foundation announced that it is suing the city of Philadelphia in federal court Monday for its failure to respond to information requests regarding possible non-citizen voters.

PILF filed the lawsuit Monday against the Philadelphia City Commissioners on behalf of the Virginia-based American Civil Rights Union election integrity group, according to the Washington Free Beacon. ACRU and PILF sought answers to their inquiries about Philadelphia’s surprisingly high number of registered voters in comparison with the number of citizens actually eligible to vote during elections. But when the city’s commissioners did not respond to the inquiries, PILF filed the lawsuit against them.

The article explains that the lawsuit states that because the county involved has more registered voters than eligible citizens living in the county. it is possible that they are mot properly monitoring their voter registration lists.

The article concludes:

But the city of Philadelphia did not respond to PILF’s requests for updated registration data, the number of voters ineligible for various reasons, the source agencies that provided this information, the records indicating citizenship or immigration statuses, and more, the Free Beacon noted.

“Corrupted voter rolls provide the perfect environment for voter fraud. Failure to clean the rolls aggravates longstanding problems of voter fraud in Philadelphia,” said J. Christian Adams, PILF’s president and general counsel, according to its website. “Philadelphia may not be using all the available tools to prevent non-citizens from registering and voting. Concealing list maintenance records from the public isn’t good government, and it violates Federal election law.”

It is much easier to commit voter fraud in a large city than a small town. Generally in a small town people know each other; in a large city, a poll worker might not know that someone had recently died and was not voting. In a national election, this is particularly relevant because one or two large cities in a state can determine who gets the electoral college votes of that state. Voter registration lists need to be purged on a regular basis to keep our elections honest.

Who Will Vote In 2016?

On Thursday, the DC Clothesline posted a story quoting J. Christian Adams, a former United States Department of Justice official in the Civil Rights Division on what is happening in states that are issuing driver’s licenses to illegal aliens.

The article quotes Mr. Adams:

“The bigger problem is that when they get those drivers licenses, there’s a government social services agency that is compelled under motor voter to offer voter registration.  For example, I’m representing a client — the American Civil Rights Union. We’re about to file a brief to the Supreme Court that shows actual voter registrations of people who on their voter registration forms that they’re not citizens, but they’re still getting registered to vote.

…“[These will be] the actual voter registrations forms through motor voter.  The point is, because of motor voter in issuing these alien document cards, you’re going to have non-citizens moving on to the voter rolls. It’s inevitable,” said Adams noting, “The Justice Department protects the lawless, because there’s a political benefit to this administration to allow lawlessness to occur. Because if those people who lawlessly are on the voter rolls go to vote, there’s probably a 9 in 10 chance they’re voting for Democrats.”

Unless someone somewhere in government decides to defend the integrity of the American electoral process, this is where we are.

How The Government’s Actions Impact Ordinary Americans

On Saturday The American Thinker posted an article about how illegal immigration impacts ordinary Americans. Every American who says, “I don’t pay attention to politics” needs to hear this story.

The story reports:

The other day I received a letter from the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) instructing me to renew my driver’s license in person. The letter stated I was required to take a vision test and a new photo. The letter also provided me with a phone number to schedule an appointment. 

When I called the number, the representative told me that the next available appointment to visit my local DMV was 8 weeks later, well beyond the expiration date of my driver’s license. The representative explained it was due to undocumented immigrants, what we used to call illegal aliens, now being able to obtain driver licenses, and that my best bet was to simply go to my local DMV office and see if I could receive a same-day appointment. Thank you Governor Moonbeam Jerry Brown.

You can follow the link above to read the rest of the story, but just the beginning makes a very valid point. When you add 5 million or so brand new people to America, you overload the existing systems. How will the 5 million or so people granted amnesty impact your local Division of Motor Vehicles, hospitals, traffic, public housing, schools, local charities, public transportation, public services, and unemployment? Aside from the fact that President Obama’s executive action is unconstitutional, and aside from the fact that executive amnesty will eventually cost us $7.2 billion per year (rightwinggranny.com), can America absorb this number of new people and still provide jobs and opportunities for those who are legally citizens?

Losing The Concept Of Law

One of the problems with the Obama Administration is that the President seems to think he has the right to follow some laws and ignore others. Unfortunately, this idea seems to be working its way through the country.

Yesterday the Washington Times reported that a federal appeals court has ruled that Arizona must issue driver’s licenses to ‘dreamers.’ Dreamers are the young illegal immigrants that President Obama has given tentative permission to be in the country. The ‘dreamers’ are in a difficult position–they were brought here as young children and have lived their lives in America–but they are still illegal immigrants–and we are giving them driver’s licenses. This really sets a bad precedent.

We need to remember that illegal immigrants are not American citizens–they are not entitled to the protections of the U.S. Constitution granted to American citizens. I would not have a problem with setting up a reasonable process to allow dreamers to become citizens, but issuing driver’s licenses to illegals is a really bad idea.

The article reports:

The ruling could bolster Mr. Obama’s desire later this summer to claim executive powers to carve out even more illegal immigrants from the danger of deportation.

The judges said Congress has given the executive branch “broad discretion” to decide whether illegal immigrants are able to live and work in the U.S., and the judges said Arizona was interfering with that ability.

The ruling once again puts Arizona in the center of the immigration debate — a role that the state had played for years but which it seemed to be shedding in recent months as Texas rose to the front — overwhelmed by a new wave of illegal immigrant families and unaccompanied children from Central America.

The Tenth Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The federal appeals court is taking away the right of Arizona to decide to follow the law and not issue driver’s licenses to people who are here illegally.  Not only is that is a state matter–not a federal matter–it is in conflict with existing federal law.

 

Depending Where You Live, Renewing Your Drivers License May Be More Complicated Than It Has Been In The Past

A friend posted the following on Facebook:

I went with Howard to DMV this morning when he renewed his drivers license for the first time since the new government program went into effect. Since we had the required documents with us – certified birth certificate, passport, proof of social security, tax bill, and utility bill it was less of a hassle than I expected it to be. However, there were a few people ahead of us that were told that they didn’t have all the documents needed for a verified drivers license.

I was puzzled by this post and did some investigating. It seems that Connecticut has a new program for renewing driver’s licenses.

The Examiner posted an article on this change in March 2012, and the Connecticut Mirror posted and article about it in September 2011.

The Connecticut Mirror states:

Connecticut launched a campaign today to publicize how to obtain a driver’s license that meets the stricter verification standards of a federal “Real ID” law passed in 2005, but never implemented in face of objections from two dozen states.

Beginning Oct. 3, drivers in Connecticut will have two choices when renewing their licenses: accept a license stamped “not for federal identification,” or provide proof of residence and immigration status for an ID with a gold star.

The Examiner reports:

The Real ID Act, enacted in 2005 in the wake of the World Trade Center attacks, sets forth certain requirements for state driver’s licenses and identification cards in order for the cards to be accepted by the federal government for “official” purposes. The purposed federal program, expected to go into effect in 2017, would require verified state identification to enter government buildings, pass airport security even for domestic flights, and possibly other commercial transactions.

Connecticut rolled out its verified driver’s license and identification card program, called SelectCT ID, in October of last year. Connecticut will phase in the new verified driver’s licenses over the next six years as driver’s licenses are renewed. At least for the first renewal, Connecticut residents are given the choice of obtaining a verified driver’s license or a regular driver’s license. If a regular driver’s license is chosen, it will not be acceptable for official federal government purposes. As early as 2017, people without verified state identification may need to show a US passport for domestic air travel.

So let me get this straight. You don’t have to show an ID card to vote, but you have to bring all sorts of additional documentation to get a drivers license that will allow you to board an airplane as a passenger.

This is a total “Beam me up, Scotty” moment.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Isn’t Louisiana Part Of The United States ?

Business Report reported yesterday that Louisiana residents who travel in the future may be asked to show passports in order to travel in the rest of the United States.

The article reports:

Campbell (Louisiana Office of Motor Vehicles Commissioner Stephen Campbell) spent all of last week in Washington, D.C., attending a conference and seeking answers pertaining to what could happen if Louisiana doesn’t get an extension to comply with the REAL ID Act, which is poised to take effect Jan. 14.

“We’re still hopeful that there will be an extension or some other compromise,” says Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport spokesman Jim Caldwell.

Louisiana will meet most standards of the REAL ID Act that the 9/11 Commission implemented, Campbell says. At issue is the addition of a gold star to Louisiana driver’s licenses to indicate the state is in compliance with federal law and that its residents have a nationally recognized identification number. Louisiana House Bill 715 makes it unlawful to fully implement the ID Act.

It is disturbing to me that the driver’s licenses issued by one state may not be recognized as valid identification in other states. To me it seems as if that goes against the whole concept of the United States.

Enhanced by Zemanta

I Love Irony

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line posted the following:

Please note that the media will not be allowed in to the NAACP Convention to hear Attorney General Eric Holder speak unless they present a “government-issued photo I.D.” (such as a driver’s license) as well as valid media credentials.

Ok, let me get this right–media credentials are not enough to get in to hear Attorney General Eric Holder speak–you also need a government-issued photo I.D. in addition to your credentials. All those of us who want honest elections are asking for is one form of I.D. in order to vote–not two–and Eric Holder is fighting that. Does anyone else see the irony?

Enhanced by Zemanta