Archive for the ‘Law Enforcement’ Category
Minutes after President Obama said that it’s too early to tell who detonated the Boston Marathon bombs, David Axelrod suggested that the White House thought it was a white guy because of Tax Day. Barney Frank then used the terrorist attack as an opportunity to say that the terrorist attack was proof we needed to raise taxes. This morning, Salon’s David Sirota wrote this column to say that he hopes the terrorist is a white guy:
As we now move into the official Political Aftermath period of the Boston bombing, the period that will determine the long-term legislative fallout of the atrocity, the dynamics of privilege will undoubtedly influence the nation’s collective reaction to the attacks. That’s because privilege tends to determine: 1) which groups are, and are not, collectively denigrated or targeted for the unlawful actions of individuals; and 2) how big and politically game-changing the overall reaction ends up being.
This has been most obvious in the context of recent mass shootings. In those awful episodes, a religious or ethnic minority group lacking such privilege would likely be collectively slandered and/or targeted with surveillance or profiling (or worse) if some of its individuals comprised most of the mass shooters. However, white male privilege means white men are not collectively denigrated/targeted for those shootings, even though most come at the hands of white dudes.
Likewise, in the context of terrorist attacks, such privilege means white non-Islamic terrorists are typically portrayed not as representative of whole groups or ideologies, but as “lone wolf” threats to be dealt with as isolated law enforcement matters. Meanwhile, non-white or developing-world terrorism suspects are often reflexively portrayed as representative of larger conspiracies, ideologies and religions that must be dealt with as systemic threats, the kind potentially requiring everything from law enforcement action to military operations to civil liberties legislation to foreign policy shifts.
Let’s be clear about something important from the outset. The FBI’s investigation should go only where the forensic evidence takes them. If forensic scientists determine that the bombs’ markers suggest that the bombs were patterned after the Iranian-manufactured IEDs that were detonated against US troops in Iraq, then that’s where their investigation should take them.
If the bombs’ components suggest they were the work of a lone wolf domestic terrorist, that’s the direction the investigation should head in.
Next, in the aftermath of 9/11, President Bush made clear that his national security team would welcome US mosques’ help in tracking down terrorists. As the investigation into terrorist networks gathered information, he talked about specific Saudi, Pakistani and Egyptian madrassas as producing terrorists.
In other words, the accusations were based on the information that was gathered during their investigation, not because the Bush administration had it in for Muslims.
By contrast, the FBI hasn’t uncovered a system of white guy training grounds to kill abortionists and others they don’t agree with. For instance, the FBI didn’t find a string of militias started in Tim McVeigh’s honor. That means white guys who’ve committed acts of terror have acted without a network of support, thus fitting the description of acting as lone wolf terrorists.
Sirota then made this reference:
By contrast, even though America has seen a consistent barrage of attacks from domestic non-Islamic terrorists, the privilege and double standards baked into our national security ideologies means those attacks have resulted in no systemic action of the scope marshaled against foreign terrorists. In fact, it has been quite the opposite, according to Darryl Johnson, the senior domestic terrorism analyst at the Department of Homeland Security, the conservative movement backlash to merely reporting the rising threat of such domestic terrorism resulted in DHS seriously curtailing its initiatives against that particular threat. (Irony alert: When it comes specifically to fighting white non-Muslim domestic terrorists, the right seems to now support the very doctrine it criticized Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry for articulating, the doctrine that sees fighting terrorism as primarily “an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement, public-diplomacy effort” and not something more systemic.)
The Crooks and Liars post refers to Jared Loughner, the man who attacked Gabby Giffords in Tuscon. The Loughner attack on Giffords was tragic but it wasn’t the act of a terrorist. It was an attack by a crazed madman who didn’t have control of his faculties. Comparing Loughner’s attack with the Boston Marathon terrorist attack is foolish.
First, there’s no proof that Laughner pre-planned his attack. There’s tons of proof that the Boston Marathon terrorist attack was pre-planned. Loughner bought ammunition for his gun, then went out and shot a bunch of innocent people. The Boston Marathon terrorist or terrorists bought the bombs’ components, put them together, deployed them to specific locations designed to create the most bloodshed and fear possible.
It’s right to say that the Boston Marathon terrorist attack was pre-planned while the Loughner attack, though tragic, didn’t require any planning.
Second, as to the point about then-Candidate Kerry being right, that’s laughable. Reading terrorists their rights isn’t being right. Passing a global test isn’t being right. Pretending that killing the Taliban in Afghanistan was all that was needed to end the war isn’t being right.
When a domestic terrorist is captured, like the Lackawanna Six, the Bush administration used law enforcement. They applied for and got search warrants through the FISA Courts. When the NSA picked up chatter about a terrorist network while they surveiled terrorists in Pakistan or Afghanistan, the Bush administration used the CIA or other special forces to roll up entire networks of terrorists.
In other words, the Bush administration policy towards terrorists was complex and multi-faceted whereas the Kerry plan wasn’t multi-faceted. It relied on reading all terrorists their Miranda rights, then hoping they could find out about the terrorists’ networks by having a conversation with the terrorists.
Treating Jared Loughner and Tim McVeigh differently than foreign terrorists makes sense because the specifics are dramatically different. Loughner didn’t pre-plan his attack. McVeigh pre-planned his attack but he wasn’t assisted by a vast network of like-minded terrorists. Only time will tell whether the Boston Marathon terrorist attack was supported by a network of like-minded terrorists.
Simply put, let’s hope the FBI captures the terrorist or terrorists before they can strike again.
This video will infuriate law-abiding citizens:
Kerry Picket’s article includes the videotaped statements from Border Patrol agent George McCubbin III and ICE agent Chris Crane. McCubbin is the president of the National Border Patrol Council. Crane is president of the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council.
This is part of Crane’s statement:
As another example, the incident in El Paso released publicly last week, ICE manager were provided with the following details. One, an alien was arrested by local police and placed in jail on two charges. Charge one-assault with bodily injury to a family member and charge two-interfering with that person’s attempts to call emergency assistance.”
“When ICE arrested the individual for immigration violations, he attempted to escape, another criminal offense, one agent was injured in the incident claiming the injuries were intentionally inflicted by the escapee, another criminal offense, of course assault of a federal agent, so in this case we have four possible criminal charges-two involving violence, one injured family member and one injured officer. Without any questioning—without any investigation, the alien was released as a dreamer. No criminal charges, no immigration charges, no nothing.”
“‘He’s a dreamer. Release him.’ Incidents like this happening around the nation lead us to believe that the new policies will be ineffective in terms of providing for public safety.”
Secretary Napolitano should resign ASAP. This is a major scandal. According to Picket’s article, Napolitano testified at a House Homeland Security Committee hearing. Based on Crane’s and McCubbin’s statements, it’s pretty apparent that she isn’t interested in enforcing the border. She’s interested in spinning her department’s policies:
Napolitano testified earlier in the week before the House Judiciary Committee and defended President Obama’s immigration directive saying, “Our nation’s immigration laws must be enforced in a strong and sensible manner,” She added, “But they are not designed to be blindly enforced without consideration given to the individual circumstances of each case.”
It’s more accurate to say that this administration doesn’t believe in enforcing this nation’s immigration laws.
There have been only 4 secretaries of DHS. Ms. Napolitano is the worst by far. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if she’d still be considered the worst a generation from now.
Yesterday, Mitt Romney’s campaign asked Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli to investigate the activities of the Voter Participation Center:
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s campaign is asking Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to launch an investigation into voter-registration forms that are being sent to Virginia residents and addressed to deceased relatives, children, family pets and others ineligible to vote.
The errant mailings from the Washington-based nonprofit group Voter Participation Center have befuddled many Virginia residents, leading to hundreds of complaints.
The organization has been mass-mailing the forms, pre-populated with key information such as names and addresses, to primarily Democratic-leaning voting blocs such as young adults, unmarried women, African-Americans and Latinos.
VPC founder Page Gardner has responded to the Romney campaign’s request in this communication:
Attempts by the Romney for President Campaign to block voter registration efforts in Virginia “may rise to the level of interference with legitimate voter registration efforts contrary to applicable state and federal laws,” the Voter Participation Center (VPC) said today in a letter to Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.
The VPC today asked the Attorney General to refuse the Romney for President Campaign’s request to investigate completely lawful efforts by the VPC to register Virginians. The VPC also asked the Attorney General to deny the Campaign’s request that State Board of Elections officials direct registrars to refuse to accept official, state approved voter registration applications submitted by eligible voters in the Commonwealth.
“The Romney campaign’s request for a probe into over 15 thousand returned legal and state-approved registration application forms is part of a blatant and ongoing partisan effort to keep people from voting, “ explained VPC founder and president Page Gardner. “We see it everywhere –voter purges in Florida, Texas and Colorado; onerous voter ID laws, which Pennsylvania State GOP House Leader Mike Turzai recently admitted serve no purpose other than to elect Republicans. We will fight these efforts to disenfranchise voters in Virginia and in every other state.”
Seventy-three (73) million Americans are unregistered in American today. This is a national disgrace.
The Voter Participation Center is a non-partisan, non-profit that focuses on registering and turning out the Rising American Electorate, unmarried women, people of color and young voters, who account for 53 percent of voting eligible citizens but who represent 63 percent of all unregistered Americans.
The VPC has helped register more than 1.5 million voters since it began in 2004. Since September 2011, the VPC has mailed out almost 7 million voter registration applications in 30 states. Those applications were reviewed prior to mailing by elections officials, including in Virginia where they were reviewed by officials in the State Board of Elections office. More than 400,000 Americans returned those applications to elections officials. The VPC plans to add to these totals with another 5.3 million piece mailing in early September.
“The new majority in America frightens some political groups because these are the voters they want to keep from the polls on November 6. It’s no surprise that our organization, which is conducting the largest mail registration program in the country, is under attack. But we have no intention of backing down. At a time when states have limited programs or resources to educate and register voters, efforts like ours, the League of Women Voters and other civic engagement groups have never been more important.”
The Romney campaign doesn’t have a complaint with voter registration drives that register “unmarried women, people of color and young voters.” The Romney campaign has a problem with VPC attempting to register out-of-state family members and deceased children:
Justin Riemer, the State Board of Elections’ deputy secretary, said forms have been sent by the group to deceased infants, out-of-state family members, and non-U.S. citizens, among others.
The Virginia State Board of Elections appears to be leaning towards investigating the VPC:
In a letter this month, the State Board of Elections asked the group to cease pre-populating their forms and raised questions about how the group was obtaining lists of registered voters, citing the errant forms.
Riemer noted that pre-populating the forms violates rules set forth in the state code and the Virginia Constitution requiring that voters fill out their own forms.
VPC knows that this investigation doesn’t have a thing to do with registering legal voters. They’ve included that in their official statement to deflect attention from the fact that they’re a) breaking the law by partially filling in the voter registration forms and b) sending registration forms to infants that died.
Based on Justin Riemer’s statements that VPC was warned a) not to fill in parts of the voter registration form and b) that filling in parts of the voter registration form was illegal in Virginia, it sounds like VPC is in deep legal trouble.
VPC’s letter to the Romney campaign opens with a bunch of bluster:
I write on behalf of the Voter Participation Center (VPC) in response to your July 24, 2012 letter to the Virginia Office of the Attorney General and State Board of Elections. The Voter Participation Center is astounded that the Romney campaign would make such blatantly false allegations. It is also astounded that you would call for an investigation into completely lawful voter registration efforts and that you would ask the State Board of Elections to direct registrars to refuse to accept official, state approved voter registration applications submitted by eligible voters in the Commonwealth.
Again, VPC is pretending that they haven’t been warned not to break the law but that’s reality.
Tags: Voter Participation Center, Voter Registration Fraud, Page Gardner, Voter Fraud, Investigation, Justin Riemer, State Board of Elections, Kenneth Cuccinelli, Attorney General, Mitt Romney, GOP, Election 2012
It’s apparent that President Obama carries some pretty nasty grudges. That was in plain view after the Supreme Court ruling on SB1070. The minute that they upheld the section that got the most publicity, President Obama’s vindictiveness flashed into public view. At that precise moment, he stripped Arizona law enforcement of their 287(g) capabilities.
That’s the face of vindictiveness.
It’s equally apparent that he’ll fight for his allies even if it means ignoring the Constitution or this nation’s laws. This op-ed makes a compelling case that President Obama won’t hesitate to ignore this nation’s laws if that’s what’s needed to fight for his friends:
When the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberly Strassel exposed the fact that the Obama campaign is keeping an enemies list and spending vital resources attacking Romney supporters, many liberals gasped in surprise. Richard Nixon and Senator Joseph McCarthy kept lists of names to be targeted, but Obama keeping an enemies list? They just couldn’t understand it.
The first proof we had of President Obama’s lawlessness was when he told auto executives that their secured bondholders wouldn’t get their money, that they’d have to wait in line until after the UAW got their money first.
At a private meeting, President Obama told the auto executives that he was the only person standing between them and angry mobs. The clear implication was that these bondholders would have to forfeit their rights to people who didn’t have any rights to the spoils.
We saw President Obama ignore common sense when he shoved Solyndra’s loan down our throats even though he knew they were going bankrupt. Those aren’t the only examples:
This is why he threatens institutions such as the Supreme Court and treats the Republican House of Representatives as if they don’t even exist. He isn’t interested in compromise or coexistence with his opponents; he is committed to destroying them.
This is why when Washington rejects his political priorities, he just dictates them through executive order. Don’t enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. Don’t enforce our immigration laws. Congress defeats his cap and trade legislation, so he tells the EPA to write the new regulations by edict. He is comfortable acting on his own, ignoring the US Constitution’s old fashioned limits to executive power.
For most of my life, I’ve heard a phrase repeated again and again that I can’t shake. America is a “nation of laws, not men.” For most of my adult life, that’s been true. The hallmark of this administration has been the opposite. In President Obama’s practice, America is a nation of his whims and preferences. If this nation’s laws don’t fit his agenda, then he’s ignored this nation’s laws.
It isn’t possible to credibly argue that President Obama hasn’t attempted to do through executive orders and regulations what he couldn’t accomplish legislatively.
After he’s defeated this fall, most people won’t miss his ruthlessness or lawlessness. They’ll breath a sigh of relief that his ill-advised policies won’t adversely affect their lives.
Investors will breath an even bigger sigh of relief because they won’t have to worry about the bullseye this administration painted on their backs.
The downside is that President Obama created a pool of people who think that people with money should be punished. In fact, many of the lefty bloggers here in Minnesota think like that.
They hate prosperity. They love omnipotent government.
Many in the media have swooned over “The One.” He isn’t “The One.” This administration’s hardline followers are cultists; he’s their James Jones.
The longer President Obama and Mr. Holder refuse to comply with a federal subpoena, the longer the American people will see their behavior as disgusting.
Yesterday, following the House’s vote to hold him in criminal contempt of a congressional subpoena, Holder made this self-serving statement:
Holder was defiant in the face of the contempt votes Thursday, one criminal and one civil. He described it as “the regrettable culmination of what became a misguided and politically motivated investigation during an election year.”
That spin is bullshit. The only reason this has become an issue during a presidential campaign is because Mr. Holder hasn’t complied with this congressional subpoena since Oct. 12, 2011:
Congressional investigators issued a subpoena Wednesday for communications from several top Justice Department officials, including Attorney General Eric Holder, relating to the discredited “Fast and Furious” federal gunrunning operation.
The subpoena, issued by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, also covers communications from Holder’s chief of staff, Gary Grindler, and from Lanny Breuer, head of the department’s criminal division.
Had Mr. Holder complied with the congressional subpoena a month after it was issued, which was certainly possible, this wouldn’t have become an election year issue.
Fast and Furious would’ve still been an issue this campaign. When an administration’s policies lead to the cold-blooded murder of a law enforcement officer, it will be an election issue.
Thanks to Holder’s reprehensible behavior, the gunrunning operation and the DOJ’s behavior in hiding behind executive privilege, this will now be used as a billyclub against this corrupt, inept administration.
Fast & Furious is going away. Unfortunately, we won’t put it behind us until after Romney defeats Obama this November.
President Obama’s political decision to rescind the federal government’s pact with Arizona is proof positive that President Obama won’t enforce the federal government’s laws. He’s essentially become the first US Scofflaw-in-Chief. Predictably, Arizona law enforcement is reacting to the Scofflaw-in-Chief’s edict. First, here’s what Gov. Brewer said about the Scofflaw-in-Chief’s decision:
“As though we needed any more evidence, President Obama has demonstrated anew his utter disregard for the safety and security of the Arizona people. Within the last two hours, I have been notified the Obama administration has revoked the 287(g) agreement under the authority of which Arizona law enforcement officers have partnered with the federal government in the enforcement of immigration law.
“Of course, it is no coincidence that this announcement comes immediately on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the constitutionality of the heart of Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law: SB 1070. It’s worth noting that 68 law enforcement entities in 24 states have functioning 287(g) agreements with the federal government. But it appears the only agreements eliminated today were those in Arizona, the state that happens to be on the front lines of America’s fight against illegal immigration. We are on our own, apparently.
“I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. The Obama administration has fought the people of Arizona at every turn, downplaying the threat that a porous border poses to our citizens, filing suit in order to block our State from protecting itself, unilaterally granting immunity to tens of thousands of illegal aliens living in our midst, and now this. Still, the disarmament of Arizona’s 287(g) agreements is a new low, even for this administration.
President Obama has exceptionally thin skin. He also isn’t much into enforcing laws that past congresses have passed and previous presidents have signed into law. Today’s decision to undercut Arizona’s ability to protect its people is the greatest abdication of a president’s domestic responsibilities in the past 25 years.
Arizona is Ground Zero of the immigration battle. Their citizens have been tortured, held hostage or murdered outright. Despite those facts, the federal government has turned a blind eye towards Arizona.
Here’s what Rep. Jeff Flake said:
Mesa, Arizona – Republican Congressman Jeff Flake, who represents Arizona’s Sixth District, today criticized the Obama Administration’s suspension of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Immigration and Nationality Act Section 287(g) program in Arizona, which allows local authorities to partner with federal law enforcement agencies to carry out certain immigration enforcement functions. ICE announced today that with the suspension of the 287(g) program, their agents will not respond to a scene in which a person’s immigration status is in question unless that person is a convicted criminal, has been removed from the US previously and reentered unlawfully, or is a recent border crosser.
“Suspending this program will strip our local authorities of critical tools to deal with illegal immigration,” said Flake. “The Obama Administration is effectively broadcasting that unless an illegal immigrant is wanted for a crime, the attention of ICE isn’t warranted.”
President Obama campaigned against President Bush and Bush’s “imperial presidency.” It’s ironic that his administration is selectively, and intermittenly, enforcing the laws on the books. President Obama has become what he campaigned against.
KrisAnne Hall, whom I met at this year’s RightOnline Conference, wrote this brilliant article about Monday’s opinion written by Anthony Kennedy. I found this part particularly compelling:
Not only is this ruling devoid of any appeal to the Constitution, it is very dangerous. It is an aberration of fundamental Constitutional principles and a brazen assault on state sovereignty! Chiefly, Kennedy takes the Supremacy clause of the Constitution, which declares that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and translates that principle into the supremacy of the Federal government over the states. There couldn’t be anything more contrary to our founders’ intent. Let me repeat: this opinion is a monumental assault on the sovereignty of the states.
Article I section 8 clause 4 of the Constitution states that Congress has the power [t]o establish an uniform rule of naturalization. The purpose of the federal government in the case of immigration, as Justice Kennedy appropriately acknowledges is “to be a single voice of the nation for foreign relations.”
This external focus is in line with James Madison’s directive that: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce…”
Justice Kennedy’s ruling allowed President Obama to continue his disastrous, dangerous policies that endanger people. If Justice Kennedy had the final say in the matter, state sovereignty would’ve disappeared midway through his intellectually flimsy opinion.
This weekend, Democrats have visited the TV talk shows explaining that Eric Holder is the victim of Republicans’ vindictive political fishing expedition. That’s insulting for a multitude of reasons.
The morning of the vote, President Obama asserted executive privilege, which temporarily prevented the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee from seeing the documents. Most serious legal scholars expect the courts to laugh at President Obama’s claims of executive privilege.
Before we take that step, though, it’s time to remember Holder’s past indiscretions. The most recent indiscretion was his dropping charges against the New Black Panther Party thugs that threatened white voters outside a Philadelphia polling station:
Bartle Bull described himself as a “John Kennedy Democrat” during his interview with Bill O’Reilly. Here’s what he told O’Reilly:
O’REILLY: And that’s interesting, because you are leading the charge here against these Black Panthers. Now what did you see yourself on election day? What did you see?
BULL: I saw two armed uniformed threatening men blocking the door to a polling place, screaming rudeness at voters.
O’REILLY: What was their intent?
BULL: I can’t answer for what was between their ears.
O’REILLY: Well, what were they screaming, though?
BULL: I heard, well, one of them, for example, screamed, “Now you will see what it is like to be ruled by the black man, cracker.”
O’REILLY: Okay, did they have their Black Panther regalia on?
BULL: They wore jack boots, black boots, black combat boots, black paramilitary uniforms, black berets.
O’REILLY: All right, so they were intimidating as this young man who photographed them said. You concur with that assessment?
BULL: Oh, absolutely.
Despite the eyewitness testimony of a civil rights movement legend and videotape of the Panthers’ thuggery, Eric Holder dropped the case against the New Black Panthers Party.
That alone is justification for doubting Holder. Unfortunately, that isn’t the only reason not to trust Holder:
This is the same man who was a driving force behind President Clinton’s pardons of members of the notorious Puerto Rican terrorist group, the Armed Forces for National Liberation (FALN).
This shows what type of terrorists FALN was:
After members of the FALN were arrested, they threatened Judge Thomas McMillen’s life during their Chicago trial. Carmen Valentine told the judge, “You are lucky that we cannot take you right now,” and called the judge a terrorist. Dylcia Pagan warned the courtroom: “All of you, I would advise you to watch your backs.” And Ida Rodriguez told the judge, “You say we have no remorse. You’re right. Your jails and your long sentences will not frighten us.” These terrorists convinced McMillen that they would continue being terrorists “as long as you live. If there was a death penalty, I’d impose the penalty on you without hesitation.”
What type of law enforcement official would tell the president that these terrorists deserve a pardon? Answer: an Eric Holder type of ‘law enforcement official’. That’s before considering the fact that Mr. Holder played a vital role in the Marc Rich pardon:
Mr. Holder had more than a half-dozen contacts with Mr. Rich’s lawyers over 15 months, including phone calls, e-mail and memorandums that helped keep alive Mr. Rich’s prospects for a legal resolution to his case. And Mr. Holder’s final opinion on the matter, a recommendation to the White House on the eve of the pardon that he was “neutral, leaning toward” favorable, helped ensure that Mr. Clinton signed the pardon despite objections from other senior staff members, participants said.
It’s interesting that the man that Democrats are telling us to trust today is the person who told the Justice Department to drop a case they’d already won a conviction on.
The person Democrats are telling us to trust today is the man who said the FALN terrorists should be pardoned. The person that the Democrats are portraying as an honest man is the person who refused to stop the pardon of a fugitive from justice.
With all due respect, these aren’t the actions of a trustworthy public servant. They’re the actions of an ideologue who puts a higher priority on setting thugs free than on preventing violent thugs from seeing the light of day.
Trust Eric Holder? Not even if my life depended on it.
Tags: Operation Fast and Furious, Executive Privilege, President Obama, Eric Holder, Marc Rich, Fugitive, FALN, Terrorists, Bill Clinton, Pardons, TV Talk Shows, Spin, Democrats, Brian Terry, Law Enforcement
Thanks to this article, we now know that a voter fraud investigation is underway in Washington County:
A widespread voter fraud investigation has led to charges against 11 people in Washington County with prosecutors saying more charges were forthcoming.
All of the people charged are convicted felons who had not been cleared to vote, with most infractions occurring during the 2010 election. But prosecutors said some charges went back as far as 2008.
Under Minnesota law, convicted felons can vote, but only after they’ve completed the terms of their supervised release. Most of the suspects when asked about the allegation pleaded ignorance.
“I didn’t know I couldn’t” said Asst. Washington Co. Attorney Rick Hodsdon, describing what was commonly heard when the suspects were confronted.
Hodsdon said all allegations of voter fraud have to be investigated under Minnesota law.
“It’s an effort to ensure the integrity of the election,” Hodsdon said.
The charges stem from complaints that came from the Washington County Election Division. More than 50 complaints were forwarded to the county attorney in January, prompting the investigation, Hodsdon said.
But the investigation is not easy. The Washington County Attorney’s office does not have a budget for investigators, so the cases were then farmed out to local police departments where the infractions allegedly occurred.
Most of the charges come from Oakdale, Hodsdon said. Stillwater Police confirmed Tuesday they were also involved in the investigation.
Hodsdon said two more people were being charged late Tuesday afternoon. And there were other cases still being investigated. Investigators were also looking into allegations that the same person voted in both Wisconsin and Minnesota in the 2010 election.
What’s becoming clear is that voter fraud is happening far more frequently than the DFL was willing to admit. They’ve abandoned the “there’s no voter fraud in Minnesota” storyline and replaced it with “photo ID wouldn’t have stopped this voter fraud.”
Another thing that’s clear is that the DFL made sure that a) voter fraud cases were assigned to already overworked county attorneys and b) budget to conduct thorough investigations didn’t exist. It’s apparent that voter fraud prosecutions are becoming more frequent in Minnesota. With that happening, the state has a vital interest in guaranteeing that voter fraud culprits are investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
I’d further argue that punishment for voter fraud by harsh (minimum 10 years in prison) and the permanent revocation of voting rights after the felon’s release from prison.
It’s worth noting that photo ID won’t eliminate all types of voter fraud. There simply isn’t a single silver bullet remedy. What’s needed, among other things, is a) a voter registration list that’s updated frequently and b) cross-referencing between the voter registration list and the imprisoned paroled lists.
What’s undeniable now is that Republicans, especially Dan Severson, Mary Kiffmeyer and Minnesota Majority were right in trumpeting the fact that Minnesota’s election system wasn’t the gold standard that Mark Ritchie and Common Cause MN kept telling us it was. We now have proof throughout the state that voter fraud has happened and that it’s a serious problem that can’t be ignored any longer.
If the DFL insists on fighting photo Id, they’ll lose seats in 2012. People are demanding answers. They understand that photo ID is needed to tighten up the system.
People think our current system is under assault because they’ve read too many articles where ACORN or other like-minded organizations are pleading guilty to voter registration fraud. They’ve seen NBPP thugs keep white voters from voting in Philadelphia. They’re appalled by the Stene family’s nightmare with the Clark Lake Group Home.
Simply put, they don’t trust our election system. After reading another article about another voter fraud investigation, why shouldn’t voters have a jaded attitude towards election integrity? I’d submit that to not have a jaded attitude towards election integrity would be abnormal.
I’d argue that it’s getting to the point that voter fraud is reaching crisis levels. The DFL suggesting that Photo ID shouldn’t be part of the solution in restoring election integrity simply isn’t being realistic.
I’d further submit that SecState Ritchie’s performance has been pathetic. He’s turned a blind eye to real voter fraud cases. He’s argued that he couldn’t clean voter rolls because he didn’t have the authority half a decade after HAVA, passed in 2002, gave him the authority to clean voter registration lists.
In fact, HAVA gave the chief election officers in each of the 50 states the affirmative responsibility of cleaning the voter rolls.
I’d submit that Susan Gaertner and Mike Freeman haven’t investigated and/or prosecuted felons who voted illegally in their counties with the vigor that’s obviously needed.
Finally, I’d submit that Joe Mansky’s answers in this interview were disconcerting at minimum:
ESME: We just heard from Rep. Kiffmeyer, who said the system needs voter ID. How do you feel about that?
JOE MANSKY: I don’t think that’s the case. If you just look at the numbers and the business of the people under felony sentences voting that’s been in the news. But let’s take a look at that a minute. Our compliance rate, the rate at which voters comply with our law, is 99.99 percent. In Ramsey County, we had 28 people charged out of 278,000 people voting. I don’t think that there is a problem. There will always be a small number of people who won’t comply with the law. But again, 99.99 percent is probably not a bad place to be at.
Mansky’s statistics are meaningless because they don’t take into account the fact that felons might actually deceitfully manipulate the system.
Felons deceitfully manipulating our election system. That’s so out-of-character. NOT.
Technorati: Voter Fraud, Investigation, Mark Ritchie, Joe Mansky, Detectives, Felons, Washington County, Mike Freeman, Hennepin County, Susan Gaertner, Ramsey County, Common Cause, DFL, Jim Stene, Mary Kiffmeyer, Election Integrity, MNGOP
If there was any question whether Gov. Dayton cared about the rule of law, those questions disappeared when he let 2 executive orders expire. One executive order required “employers with state contracts to check new employees using the E-Verify federal immigration database. The other executive order “directed state agencies to pursue cooperation with ICE to carry out deportations and other punitive enforcement wherever possible, including the Criminal Alien Program (CAP) and 287g agreements with the Department of Public Safety.”
The Minnesota Immigrant Rights Action Committee (MIRAc) is waging a No More Deportations campaign which aims to stop Minnesota and its counties from collaborating with ICE deportation programs like CAP, 287g and Secure Communities. MIRAc put out a statement encouraging people to call Governor Dayton to demand that he not pursue any further collaboration with ICE on deportation or enforcement programs.
According to Niger Arevalo of MIRAc, “It’s good that Governor Dayton didn’t renew Pawlenty’s anti-immigrant executive orders. But this is just the beginning, immigrant workers are still being deported and families are being separated at an alarming rate in Minnesota and this has to stop now. The No More Deportations campaign wants to make sure that Governor Dayton does not implement the so-called Secure Communities deportation program. And we’re calling on the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners to vote to stop cooperating with ICE through the Criminal Alien Program. We encourage people to join our campaign to stop deportations in Minnesota.”
TRANSLATION: The Minnesota Immigrant Rights Action Committee (MIRAc) is waging a campaign which aims to encourage lawlessness while letting more criminal behavior go unprosecuted.
Let’s not sugarcoat this. This ties into a pattern with Democrats. If the Supreme Court says that something is constitutional, President Obama will still attempt to ignore the SCOTUS ruling. If AFSCME thugs decide that they can’t achieve one of their goals their president threatens to shut the state down. Now, Gov. Dayton disagrees with immigration laws so he’s taking (in)action by not enforcing immigration laws.
This is proof that Democrats care more about political advantages than they care about the rule of law. The sole exception is when enforcing laws gives them more control of our lives.
I fear we’re heading for another 1970s counterculture clash for the ages. That was when people just ignored the laws, which, in turn, put other Americans’ lives at risk. Riots erupted that killed innocent bystanders. LA, Chicago and Detroit were turned into police states because people had been encouraged to ignore the rule of law.
Greta has done dozens of shows showing how drug cartels prey on Arizonans, often by raiding their homes. People live in fear for their lives.
Thanks to the gutless wonder in Minnesota’s governor’s mansion, illegal immigrants are taught that breaking the law is the fast path to prosperity.
Simply put, the DFL’s priorities aren’t Main Street’s priorities. Main Street actually prefers that laws be enforced. Main Street prefers that spending be prioritized, not wildly increased. (See President Obama on that. He’s the expert on that subject, though Gov. Dayton is reckless with the taxpayers’ money, too.)
After reading that President Obama is considering ignoring the SCOTUS ruling in the Citizens United v. FEC case, it isn’t difficult to think that President Obama thinks that he’s above the law. Here’s what Hans Spakovsky is reporting:
The draft Executive Order says it is intended to “increase transparency and accountability,” an interesting claim given the fact that federal contractors are already completely barred by 2 U.S.C. § 441c from making:
Any contribution of money or other things of value, or to promise expressly or impliedly to make any such contribution to any political party, committee, or candidate for public office or to any person for any political purpose or use.
Yet this proposed Executive Order would require government contractors to disclose:
(a) All contributions or expenditures to or on behalf of federal candidates, parties or party committees made by the bidding entity, its directors or officers, or any affiliates or subsidiaries within its control.
(b) Any contributions made to third party entities with the intention or reasonable expectation that parties would use those contributions to make independent expenditures or electioneering communications.
As Spakovsky says in the article, ‘reasonable expectation’ can essentially mean whatever a prosecutor wants it to mean. That isn’t reform. That’s a thinly veiled disguise for implementing the DISCLOSE Act.
Here’s another disturbing part of the draft EO:
And note that these disclosure requirements will only apply to companies that make bids on government contracts. Federal employee unions that negotiate contracts for their members worth many times the value of some government contracts are not affected by this order. Neither are the recipients of hundreds of millions of dollars of federal grants.
Clearly, this administration is not interested in increasing “transparency and accountability” when it comes to forcing union leaders or the heads of liberal advocacy organizations such as Planned Parenthood from disclosing the personal political contributions they make to candidates running for federal office.
First, Congress should stop the draft EO from being implemented. If the Senate won’t react to the House bill, then I’d urge Tom Coburn, Jim Demint, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and others to stop the Senate in its tracks. PERIOD.
Second, I’d hope that th RNC start an ad campaign against the Obama administration as thinking of themselves as being above the law, even the SCOTUS. If this administration thinks that they shouldn’t be obligated to obeying Supreme Court rulings, then it should be exposed as being anarchists willing to ignore the law if that’s what’s required to meet their goals.
Third, it’s important that this administration’s indifference towards Supreme Court rulings be tied to the unions’ thuggish ends-justifies-the-means mentality. Though I won’t classify members of the police and firefighter unions as thugs, I’d consider calling them out for attempting to fight against other people’s First Amendment rights:
Come one, come all, hear the call to…DUMP TEA! DUMP PALIN!
Please share widely. The puppets are coming, the puppets are coming! Corporate puppets Sarah Palin and “Americans” for “Prosperity” are rallying at our Wisconsin State Capitol on 4/16.
BRING PUPPETS — sock puppets, hand puppets, marionettes, shadow puppets, finger puppets and muppets!
BRING LIBERTY BELLS — that means cowbells, dinner bells, doorbells, jingle bells, you name it, and let’s ring in Wisconsin’s independence from corporate rule!
They weren’t there for a counter-protest. They were there to attempt to drown out Sarah Palin’s voice. Predictably, that didn’t work.
I’m totally prepared to call AFSCME activists thugs, especially after AFSCME thugs in Wisconsin tried running small businesses out of business and after the president of the Michigan chapter of AFSCME exhorted his troops to shut the state down.
President Obama is as much a creature of the thug machine mentality that permeates Chicago politics as AFSCME thugs are the byproduct of their ‘all hell’s gonna break loose if they don’t support me’ environment.
President Obama’s floating the rumor that he’ll essentially ignore the Citizens United v. FEC is just the latest proof that President Obama really thinks that the law is what he thinks it should be. The earliest proof was President Obama threatening secured bondholders at GM into letting unsecured bondholders get first dibbs from the bailout.
Federal law says that secured bondholders have first take because they agree to get paid less interest on the note in exchange for getting first dibbs in a bankruptcy.
Whether it’s President Obama acting like he’s above the law or the union thug activists that support him, it’s the same thing. The ends justify any means and laws can be ignored if it’s for the ‘greater good.’
That isn’t justice. That’s what crackpot dictators do. That’s why America won’t give him a second term.