Publicado: 04-02-2012 11:34 AM
THAT'S IT, FOLKS. CLEAN AS A WHISTLE. YA EMPEZARON LOS INUTILES A METER SUS FOLLONES MENTALES Y MENTIRAS ACERCA DE SU CAMPAIGN, COMO SIEMPRE, WE SHOULD GET USED TO THIS CRAP, IT'S GONNA HAPPEN OVER AND OVER, NO TIENEN PAZ MENTAL PORQUE SABEN QUE ESTAN EN EL FONDO DEL BARRIL, J AJAJAJAJA
04-02-2012 01:41 PM - editado 04-02-2012 01:51 PM
Obama Expands War on Energy to Coal
By John Ransom 4/2/2012
Enviro-Whack jobs are celebrating the demise of America‘s most abundant energy resource, coal. Because coal has just been given the death sentence by Obama and the EPA just as Obama planned.
“So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can,” said candidate Obama “it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”
The EPA has issued new proposed rules on carbon emissions that will help Obama keep one campaign promise: Builders of new coal fired power plants won’t be prevented from building coal-fired power plants, they’ll just go bankrupt if they try.
"If old King Coal isn't dead already, he's certainly teetering toward life support," said Frank O'Donnell, president Clean Air Watch in Washington.
“Proposed emission rules for new power plants unveiled by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on March 27 spell the gradual demise of coal-fired power generation and entrench the current cost advantage for natural gas,” reports Reuters’ John Kemp.
If Obama can’t get the tax portion of the Cap and Tax, I guess he figures he might just as well get the cap portion done. The problem of course is that you and I are going to pay higher electric rates because of it.
“The agency's proposed rule, signed yesterday, would set a standard well within the capability of modern gas-fired plants but impossible for coal-fired units to meet unless they employ (unproven) carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology.”
Even before this proposed new rule, Obama has been using a variety of stratagems to stop the construction of new coal-fired plants.
“Power developers have scrapped plans for more than 100 coal-fired electricity plants over the past decade,” says a Reuters newswire report, “due to difficulty obtaining construction and pollution permits or because they were simply too expensive.”
Last year the EPA tightened up particulate standards for every type of industry including concrete. Additionally, the agency last year used obscure visibility standards to try to put the throttle on coal-fired power plant, eliciting an eruption of protest from the GOP-controlled House of Representatives.
“So much for that ‘all of the above’ energy plan the President touted last week,” says Congressman John Sullivan, Vice Chairman of the House Energy and Power Subcommittee in response to the new EPA mandate. “Today's announcement from EPA is an unprecedented attack on American made energy. EPA’s greenhouse gas rules are a backdoor attempt to enact a national energy tax that will have a crushing impact on consumers, jobs, and our economy- while doing little to protect the environment.”
OK, so maybe Obama will get the tax portion too. I stand corrected.
The move by the EPA continues to try to help Obama shore up his environmental base in front of the 2012 presidential elections.
At this point, it’s all Obama can do, considering that: 1) He has no energy policy; and 2) The American people know that he has no energy policy.
According to a recent Gallup poll, a stunning 58 percent of Americans don’t think that Obama is doing a good job managing energy policy. The poll also revealed that 57 percent of Americans don’t think Obama is doing a good job making the country prosperous. The numbers’ proximity to each other are likely not coincidental.
For 100 years the country has followed policies that tried to ensure that we have stable prices and a reliable sources of energy.
Obama’s policy of providing neither reliability nor price stability would be akin to the US announcing the unilateral departure from NATO.
Obama and company are hoping that the nudge the economy has seen from the loose money policies followed by the Federal Reserve will be just enough to convince Americans that the president should get another term.
But the numbers say otherwise, mostly because policies- like this newest EPA mandate promoted by Obama- have killed job creation in the US, while sparking pockets of inflation. At a time when prices are going up, the job market remains dismal, and incomes aren’t able to keep pace.
Conversely, the National Mining Association (NMA) is saying that the coal business won’t die- thanks to exports to emerging economies.
“Seaborne exports of coal are hitting record levels,” says Hal Quinn, the president and CEO of the NMA. “Last year U.S. mines exported more than 100 million tons of coal, up 40 percent from 2009 -- and the highest level in 20 years.”
In other words, the cheap coal that we won’t use is being used by other economies.
According to figures provided by the NMA:
Coal for electricity generation in China in 2010 stood at 1.6 billion tons—by 2030 it will almost double to 3.1 billion tons.
China’s industrial sector (steel, cement, petrochemicals) accounts for almost 40 percent of the coal demand at 1.2 billion tons—that is expected to almost double as well to 2.1 billion tons by 2030.
China has already invested $15 billion in coal conversion infrastructure to transform coal into oil; by 2020 that investment will reach anywhere from $65-80 billion with a requirement of over 100 million tons of coal.
India is investing in a new electrification program and 80 percent of new capacity will come from coal, with an expected increase in coal demand of over 200 percent in just five years.
Still despite exports to other countries, slackening coal orders domestically are going to hurt workers and cause rates to rise for electricty.
“The uncertainty caused by these regulations could result in the loss of thousands of Ohio jobs and will increase electricity rates for families during tough economic times, in return for less reliable power,” Ohio Republican Senator Rob Portman said in an e-mailed statement to BusinessWeek.com.
There is a reason why emerging economies have picked coal: It’s cheaper than natural gas over time and more reliable.
Already we have seen the enviro-whack jobs turn on natural gas, shutting down fracking operations around the country.
“This EPA is fully engaging in a war on coal,” West Virginia Democratic Senator Joe Manchin said in a statement according to BusinessWeek.com. “This approach relies totally on cheap natural gas and we’ve seen that bubble burst before.”
“It might sound good now, but what happens if those prices go up?” Manchin added.
Oh, it’s not if, it’s when.
Publicado: 04-02-2012 07:52 PM
Van Jones: Obama Wouldn't Lose Black Vote Even If He Came Out As Gay
“I think if President Obama came out as gay, he wouldn't lose the black vote," a cheerful Van Jones told MSNBC this afternoon.
"President Obama is not going to lose the black vote no matter what he does," he added.
Van Jones, a militant communist, is in the inside circle of Obama's closest friends and advisers, surely he knows well Obama's proclivities. A very degrading commentary that I am sure many African American will take great offense.
Publicado: 04-02-2012 09:37 PM
THE WORST ECONOMIC RECOVERY IN HISTORY
Since the second half of 2009, the U.S. economy has grown at a rate of 2.4%, a full percentage point below average long-term growth..
By EDWARD P. LAZEAR
How many times have we heard that this was the worst recession since the Great Depression? That may be true—although the double-dip recession of the early 1980s was about comparable. Less publicized is that our current recovery pales in comparison with most other recoveries, including the one following the Great Depression.
The Great Depression started with major economic contractions in 1930, ‘31, ‘32 and ‘33. In the three following years, the economy rebounded strongly with growth rates of 11%, 9% and 13%, respectively.
The current recovery began in the second half of 2009, but economic growth has been weak. Growth in 2010 was 3% and in 2011 it was 1.7%. Who knows what 2012 will bring, but the current growth rate looks to be about 2%, according to the consensus of economists recently polled by Blue Chip Economic Indicators. Sadly, we have never really recovered from the recession. The economy has not even returned to its long-term growth rate and is certainly not making up for lost ground. No doubt, there are favorable economic numbers to be found, but overall we continue to struggle.
During the postwar period up to the current recession (1947-2007), the average annual growth rate for the U.S. was 3.4%. The last three decades have experienced somewhat slower growth than the earlier periods, but even in the period 1977-2007, the average growth rate was 3%. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the recovery began in the second half of 2009. Since that time, the economy has grown at 2.4%, below our long-term trend by either measure. At this point, the economy is 12% smaller than it would have been had we stayed on trend growth since 2007.
Worse, the gap is growing over time. Today, the economy is four percentage points further from the trend line than it was the first quarter of 2009 when this administration’s nearly $900 billion fiscal stimulus efforts began. If forecasts of around 2% growth turn out to be accurate, we will add to that gap this year.
Contrast this weak growth with the recovery that followed the other large recession of recent decades. In the early 1980s, the economy experienced a double-dip recession, with contractions in both 1980 and ‘82. But growth rates in the subsequent two years averaged almost 6%. The high growth that persisted throughout the 1980s brought the economy quickly back to the trend line. Unlike the current period, from 1983 on, the economy was in rapid catch-up mode and eventually regained all that had been lost during the early ‘80s.
Indeed, that was the expectation. As economist Victor Zarnowitz of the University of Chicago argued many years ago, the strength of the recovery is related to the depth of the recession. Big recessions are followed by robust recoveries, presumably because more idle resources are available to be tapped. Unfortunately, the current post-recession period has not followed the pattern.
The 2007-09 recession was induced by a financial crisis and some, most notably economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff (authors of “This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly”), argue that financial crises pose more difficult recovery problems than do policy-induced recessions.
The early ‘80s recession could be viewed as induced by the Federal Reserve’s tight monetary policy (i.e., raising interest rates), which was designed to rein in inflation. Growth returns more rapidly, they argue, when the policy hindering it changes (i.e., the Fed lowers interest rates) than when the economy is struggling after a severe credit crisis like the one we experienced after the 2008 collapse of Bear Stearns.
But some, Stanford economist John Taylor being their leading spokesman, argue that the current recession was caused by Fed policy as well—rates remained too low for too long in the lead up to the subprime mortgage fiasco. The Great Depression also began with a financial crisis but saw high growth rates following contractionary years, and the output lost in negative years was eventually regained through higher subsequent growth.
Are there other factors that may have contributed to the slow recovery that we are experiencing? It would be difficult to argue that government polices over the past three years have enhanced confidence in the U.S. business environment. Threats of higher taxes, the constantly increasing regulatory burden, the failure to pursue an aggressive trade policy that will open markets to U.S. exports, and the enormous increase in government spending all are growth impediments. Policies have focused on short-run changes and gimmicks—recall cash for clunkers and first-time home buyer credits—rather than on creating conditions that are favorable to investment that raise productivity and wages.
There are some positive developments. The labor market is improving, albeit slowly. Profits remain high and the stock market has enjoyed some recent success. We can hope that these indicate better times and higher growth ahead. But unless we move to a set of economic policies that are aimed at growing the economy rather than at promoting social agendas, this may be the first “recovery” in history that fails to see us return to long-term average growth.
Mr. Lazear, chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers from 2006-2009, is a professor at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business and a Hoover Institution fellow.
04-02-2012 09:42 PM - editado 04-02-2012 09:43 PM
4 Indiana Dems charged with election fraud in 2008
By Eric Shawn
April 02, 2012 | FoxNews.com
Felony charges related to election fraud have touched the 2008 race for the highest office in the land.
Prosecutors in South Bend, Ind., filed charges Monday against four St. Joseph County Democratic officials and deputies as part of a multiple-felony case involving the alleged forging of Democratic presidential primary petitions in the 2008 election, which put then-candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the Indiana ballot.
The officials are accused of taking part in a scheme to fake signatures and names on the primary petitions needed to run for president. Court papers say the plan was hatched by local Democratic Party officials inside the local party headquarters.
Among those charged is the former long-time chairman of the St. Joseph County Democratic Party, Butch Morgan, who allegedly ordered the forgeries. He was forced to resign when the allegations were first made public last October, even though his lawyer, Shaw Friedman, told Fox News at the time that Morgan did not do anything wrong.
The St. Joseph County Board of Voter Registration's Democratic board member, Pam Brunette, Board of Voter Registration worker Beverly Shelton and Democratic volunteer and former board worker Dustin Blythe also face charges.
According to affidavits, St. Joseph County Voter Registration Office worker Lucas Burkett told investigators that he was part of the plan that started in January 2008 "to forge signatures on presidential candidate petitions instead of collecting actual signatures from citizens."
The documents state that Burkett told investigators that “he was heavily involved in St. Joseph County political activities with the local Democratic party," and that "he had, in fact, personally forged several such signatures," and had attended meetings at the local Democratic party headquarters, where it was agreed to forge the petitions. Morgan, the County Democratic Chairman, allegedly "instructed Mr. Burkett, Pamela Brunette, Beverly Shelton, and Dustin Blythe to forge ballot petitions for presidential candidates," and that "all of them agreed to follow these instructions" by copying names and signatures from old election petitions.
According to affidavits, Burkett told investigators it was his job to "forge petitions for candidate Barack Obama," Shelton "was assigned to forge petitions for candidate Hillary Clinton" and Blythe "was assigned to forge petitions for candidate John Edwards." When Edwards dropped out of the race at the end of January 2008 and Burkett refused to continue the forgeries, Morgan allegedly ordered Blythe to then forge petitions for Barack Obama.
Indiana State Police investigators identified a total of 22 petitions that appeared to be faked, yet sailed through the Voter Registration Board as legitimate documents. The signature of the board's Republican supervisor, Linda Silcott, which is required for legal certification, appeared to be rubber stamped on the documents. She told investigators that she did not remember signing or authorizing her rubber stamp to be used.
Silcott also told investigators that she recognized the handwriting on the alleged forged Obama petitions as that of Blythe's.
The South Bend Tribune and independent political newsletter Howey Politics Indiana have reported that a handwriting analyst concluded last fall that Blythe's handwriting matched some of the alleged Obama fakes. When Fox News caught up to Blythe as he left the Voter Registration Board last November and asked him if he forged any signatures or faked any petitions, he repeatedly replied, "I don't have anything to say."
The case raises the possibility that the president's campaign and that of Clinton’s, could have been legally challenged in Indiana if the alleged forgeries were discovered during the race.
Under state law, presidential candidates need to qualify with 500 signatures from each of Indiana's nine congressional districts. Indiana elections officials say that in St. Joseph County, which is the 2nd Congressional District, the Obama campaign qualified with 534 signatures; Clinton's camp had 704.
But the signatures, which were certified by the elections board, were never challenged. If the number of legitimate signatures for Obama or Clinton fell below the legal requirement of 500, they could have been bounced from the state ballot. Reports have previously put the number of phony signatures for both candidates at about 150, but state investigators plucked names from the petitions at **noallow** and cited only 20 individual alleged forgeries as part of their case. They say their investigation of the petitions continues.
Multiple voters, including Indiana's former Democratic Gov. Joe Kernan, told Fox News that their names and signatures were phonies.
"That's not my signature," Charity Rorie told Fox News as she sat in her kitchen in Mishawaka, Ind.. The mother of four was stunned that her name and signature, and those of her husband, appeared on one of the Obama petitions. She said they "absolutely" were fakes and was troubled that personal details such as their address and birthdays were also included.
"It was shocking," she said. "Why did they do that, and where did they get it from?"
"I did not sign for Barack Obama," Democratic voter Robert Hunter told Fox News as he stared at the Obama petition that included his name and purported signature supporting the candidate. While he observed that the scrawl looked "very close" to his real one, it was not.
"I always put 'Junior' after my name, every time... there's no 'Junior' there," Hunter told us. "I don't like anybody using my name for anything other than myself."
"It's scary," Charity said. "A lot of people have already lost faith in politics and the realm of politics and that solidifies our worries and concerns."
As for Burkett, a 26-year-old lifelong Democrat, "he is the whistle-blower in this," his lawyer, Andrew B. Jones, told Fox News.
"Lucas really is the hero in this situation. He is someone who stood up for good government, and has cooperated with the state police and will continue to do so."
If you suspect voter or election fraud where you live, tell the Fox News Voter Fraud Unit: email@example.com
Publicado: 04-02-2012 09:53 PM
With a dismal record of achievement and forced to accept the bitter harvest of their failed economic and foreign policies, no one should be surprised that Team Obama and the Democrats in Congress are running scared. Nor are the Democrats’ fears irrational.
With an historical supermajority in the House and the Senate, Team Obama and Democrats pushed their pet, progressive ideas with a vengeance, spending and borrowing. Yet despite full political power and despite the trillions of dollars thrown into the maw of the Obama/Reid/Pelosi vision of utopia, our nation is left with the nastiest of all financial hangovers as a result of queasy, Democrat-initiated, shameful indulgences. Of course too, the bills, some $16 trillion dollars of them, are coming due as well.
No one in America can possibly be pleased with the sorry achievement of Team Obama, perhaps the most miserable record of failed leadership in American history. And yet, Obama and his Democrat allies that are responsible for so much of the economic pain, including the jump in the misery index, are now determined to win the next election, remain in office, and presumably spoon out even more of the wealth redistribution, job killing regulatory regimes, and anti-business policies that have gotten us into this mess.
So how do Democrats plan to get elected? They certainly cannot run on their record. Even they must know their grand, economic plans to transform the American economy have failed. They know, too, that Americans, by wide margins, believe the country is on the wrong track. So what to do?
Desperate people do desperate things, and taking a harder look at some recent Team Obama actions, it seems clear that one of the primary strategies for the election is going to be voter fraud.
In the past, ACORN was the Democrats’ trump card, empowered and encouraged to recruit fraudulent voters that would return the favors by padding votes to favorite candidates. But the ACORN sham, which had been such an obvious wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat party, was exposed and is now (mostly) out of the voter fraud business.
With ACORN gone and unable to produce the loyal legions of fraudulent voters, there’s a good chance that Team Obama may “pull a Putin.” There are lots of different ways to rig an election and encourage voter fraud. Americans recently saw that in Russia, where Vladimir Putin’s party gained a “surprise” election win, despite the widespread, anti-Putin sentiment throughout Russia. Putin showed that voter fraud, intimidation, and slick electioneering schemes can be effective.
Already, Team Obama is putting voter fraud policies in effect to tilt the election. Eric Holder’s stance on the right of individual states within the U.S. to require voter identification is the most obvious example. Several court cases have already upheld the states’ right to require voter identification.
Furthermore, many studies have shown that requiring voter identification prevents voter fraud and is no more illegal than requiring identification to obtain Medicare or Medicaid or social security payments. Nevertheless, , Holder’s move—especially claiming that voter identification requirements are racist---is indicative of the panic that Democrats in power are feeling as the 2012 election looms and they search for ways to replace ACORN’s fraudulent voter numbers.
More recently, Team, Obama is speeding up the immigration process and rushing illegal aliens to citizenship, often ahead of those who have waited, patiently and legally, for years. A 2011 report exposed the problem wherein the immigration visa processors within DHS are, apparently, being pressured by senior officials within the agency to approve applications as quickly as possible, often ignoring issues relating to eligibility and security.
Many Americans have broad-based concerns about immigration, illegal and otherwise, and there is broad-based consensus that the current immigration system and our nation’s policies need reform urgently. But what the Obama Administration is doing is not the kind of reform Americans had in mind. This current urgency to relax immigration standards in advance of the upcoming election looks exactly like it is-- a craven attempt to mine for new voters to tilt the election.
These kinds of desperation moves by Obama Administration officials are especially despicable because they seek short-term, political advantages at the expense of longer-term policies that could actually benefit the nation. For example, it is an act of economic stupidity to force foreign-born science and engineering majors from our leading universities to leave the country following graduation. These are the very technology and science professionals that we need her to spur economic growth. But, Obama is mute on the need for this sort of urgent immigration reform and, instead, now spends his time and effort on relaxing standards of the immigrants that he hopes will reward him with a vote in November. How sad is that?
Obama is a desperate man, desperate to win an election, and desperate enough to take a shameful path to his goal. Obama cannot win on the merits of his policies, and even his once, most-fervent supporters recognize that Obama’s economic policies have failed. Expect Obama to find and push even more imaginative electioneering schemes as he takes the desperate path to “pull a Putin” and resorts to voter fraud.
Publicado: 04-02-2012 10:07 PM
Democrats: Voter Fraud for Thee, But Not Me
October 29, 2010
By Anita MonCrief
Gulag Note: Is a psyops plan continuing to be executed, to cause Americans not to listen to “the boy who cried wolf,” but to think that pervasive elections irregularity is… regular? Even as any attempts to guard the integrity and accuracy of this sacred trust are deemed “undemocratic” (and, of course, “racist”)? Did the little piggy cry “wee-wee-wee-wee”, all the way home? Then, for what what are we supposedly being prepared?
Despite a tumultuous history of outright racism and an affiliation with the Klu Klux Klan, the Democratic party has laid claim to all minorities and become the so-called “champion” of the oppressed. Of course, this path requires an unlimited supply of victims and, apparently, a disregard for the law.
With less than two weeks remaining before the mid-term elections, Democrats have stepped up their concerted effort to paint the Right as racists seeking to stifle minority voters, while ignoring clear violations of established standards and practices regarding voter fraud.
“WASHINGTON (AP) — Voting rights activists said tea partiers’ efforts to obtain voter registration records could have a chilling effect on turnout, potentially undercutting Democrats and swaying the outcome of the Nov. 2 elections.
Activists on Wednesday noted that dozens of tea party-aligned groups have sought records and are planning to visit polling places on Election Day to enforce their own “voter protection” programs…
‘We are worried this year that we could see large-scale efforts to challenge voters at the polls,’ said Wendy Weiser of the Brennan Center, a nonpartisan public policy and law institute based at New York University.
Gloria Montano Greene of the National Association of Latino Elected Officials also cautioned that the persistent anti-illegal immigrant fervor could drive down turnout or unfairly target those who appear to be immigrants.
Black voters, too, are likely to face challengers, activists warned.
‘We know that we continue to face stark levels of voting discrimination around the country,’ said Kristen Clarke, co-director of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund’s voter project.”
Stark levels of voting discrimination? In case you’re wondering, the writers are not referring to the New Black Panther Party case, but to efforts to maintain the integrity of the electoral system. Amazingly, while Democrats were sounding the alarm, First Lady Michelle Obama was in Chicago demonstrating the administration’s disregard for our electoral system.
“First lady Michelle Obama appears to have violated Illinois law — when she engaged in political discussion at a polling place!
The drama began after Mrs. Obama stopped off at the Martin Luther King Center on the south side of Chicago to cast an early vote…
After finishing at the machine, Obama went back to the desk and handed in her voting key.
She let voters including electrician Dennis Campbell, 56, take some photos.
‘She was telling me how important it was to vote to keep her husband’s agenda going,’ Campbell said.
According to a pool reporter from the CHICAGO SUN-TIMES at the scene, the conversation took place INSIDE the voting center, not far from the booths.
Illinois state law — Sec. 17-29 (a) — states: “No judge of election, pollwatcher, or other person shall, at any primary or election, do any electioneering or soliciting of votes or engage in any political discussion within any polling place [or] within 100 feet of any polling place.”
Michelle Obama’s actions are inexcusable. The Obama administration is notorious for planting seeds of division around the country and the First Lady directly appealing to a black voter inside of a polling place should cause alarm. Democrats depend upon the black vote to survive and they are not above stoking the fires of racism to incite passion among voters. There is an obvious conflict of interest among those who claim voter fraud does not exist and then push for legislation that benefits their target population. This year the black vote is even more critical.
“Energizing black voters for midterm elections has always been a challenge for Democrats. This fall the Democratic National Committee plans to spend more than $2 million in outreach ads and direct mail to black voters, more than 10 times the amount spent in 2006, said Derrick Plummer, who heads up African American affairs for the DNC…
On Wednesday, President Obama spoke on Baisden’s program, warning that low turnout could allow Republicans to take power on Capitol Hill and stymie his agenda.
“Everybody in the barbershops, the beauty shops, and at work — everybody’s got to understand: This is a huge election,” the president said.
Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, agreed that black turnout would play a particularly important role at a time when the national political momentum has shifted from the “Yes We Can” crowd to the conservative “tea party” movement.
“Look, without a strong African American vote on Nov. 2, Democrats can kiss the House goodbye, and maybe the Senate, too,” Sabato said. “It’s just that critical.
The black vote is so critical that Michelle Obama is campaigning inside polling places and even the White House has defended her actions by trying to make light of the situation.
A top Illinois State Board of Elections official tells the DRUDGE REPORT that Mrs. Obama — a Harvard-educated lawyer — may have simply been ignorant of the law and thus violated it unintentionally.
‘You kind of have to drop the standard for the first lady, right?’ the official explained late Thursday. “I mean, she’s pretty well liked and probably doesn’t know what she’s doing.”
WHITE HOUSE DEFENDS ELECTIONEERING
When questioned about the brazen nature of Mrs. Obama’s campaigning, press secretary Robert Gibbs defended the action.
‘I don’t think it would be much to imagine, the First Lady might support her husband’s agenda,’ Gibbs smiled.
Considering the First Lady’s crusade against fat, her garden and the carefully crafted image presented to the public, it’s hard to imagine that she is not aware of the law. Democrats routinely attack Republicans for minor mistakes regarding voter and voting fraud. Ann Coulter and Illinois Congressman Mark Kirk are among the recent targets.
“One of the biggest stories in Illinois right now (bigger than Rahm Emanuel’s every move and thought) is how Congressman Mark Kirk, running for President Obama’s former senate seat, was unknowingly caught on tape telling state Republican leaders that he is funding “the largest voter integrity program in fifteen years for the state of Illinois.” The plan, he explained, is to place election monitors in certain precincts that are, according to Kirk, especially susceptible to voter fraud. Those precincts are in places like the Southside of Chicago and the Westside of Chicago–i.e., areas that happen to be composed mainly of Democratic and African American voters unlikely to vote for Kirk.
The Kirk Campaign has defended the program, saying it has nothing to do with race and is merely an effort to cut down on ‘…voter fraud that is well-known in Illinois….’ It’s nothing you haven’t heard from the Republicans and their allies before; accusations of voter fraud, particularly in minority-heavy districts, have been rampant ever since Obama seemed poised to win the presidency in 2008* and continue to proliferate now. But what you may not have heard is that the type of election stealing that conservatives claim to be stopping seems to be exceedingly rare”