Earlier, we wrote about James O’Keefe III’s DC sting, in which an operative goes into a polling place, asks whether they have an Eric Holder on the rolls, and declines a ballot offered to him by the poll worker. Stung, the DC Prosecutor’s office is now looking for a way to find O’Keefe and company guilty of making false representations to poll officials.
As CommanderKoolAid points out, this is going to pose difficulties, because at no point in the process did the operative affirmatively state that he was Eric Holder. He merely asks whether there’s an Eric Holder on the rolls, and the poll worker asks him to sign next to Holder’s entry . . . which he does not do. Obviously, he walks out without having cast a ballot, too, stating that he would feel better about the process if he could just go get his ID.
Sticking to their narrative, the DoJ and Eric Holder say that O’Keefe has done nothing to prove that voter fraud occurs. What they don’t say is that he demonstrates just how easily it could be committed, because of non-existent identification requirements at polling places. As part of the sting, O’Keefe and company demonstrated that it was impossible to access Holder’s physical office without official photo ID. The DoJ’s argument is thus that citizens without identification are deprived of their right to vote when forced to provide it, but that access to government officials may be denied on grounds of improper or non-existent ID without posing any kind of deprivation for the denied.
The DoJ’s hostility toward states imposing their own voter ID laws is a plain usurpation of 10th Amendment rights with no express warrant in Supreme Court decisions. We already know that President Obama attained his first state office in Illinois by dint of lawyering up to falsely mischaracterize petition signatures submitted by his opponents as themselves fraudulent. We know, too, that he was able to appear on Indiana’s ballots in the general election of 2008 by dint of manufactured signatures by a group of Democrat operatives in a county there. Similar prosecutions are ongoing in other states, and we know that Obama purchased a lot of delegates and Super Delegates who were nominally committed to Hillary Clinton prior to the Democrats’ convention in 2008. There are other, more disturbing testimonies about 2008, too.
Then there’s the related matter of Obama having once again, illegally, had the card verification function disabled at his campaign contributions website. But, you know . . . Citizens United is the real outrage here.
Taken all together, these data have made many Americans concerned about the outsourcing of counting American overseas votes to a certain company located in Spain.
