A recent study released by the conservative think-tank the Heritage Foundation provides proof that illegal aliens and immigrants with green cards are committing rampant voter fraud in the United States.

Reports of ineligible persons registering to vote have raised concerns about state processes for verifying voter registration lists. States usually base voter eligibility on the voter’s age, US citizenship, mental competence, and felon status.

Although individual states run elections, Congress has authority to affect the administration of the elections. The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) had set a deadline for states to have a statewide voter registration list and list verification procedures.

For example, the methods used in seven selected states to verify voter eligibility and ensure accuracy of voter registration lists were varied and include relying on registrant self attestation, return mailings, and checking against lists of felony convictions or deceased individuals. Some states, for instance, failed to do any more than ask on their application forms if the registrant was a US citizen. The applicant will merely check off the “Yes” box, but there is no action taken to verify the authenticity of that answer.

“The voter registration officials simply take the word of the registrant with no follow-up,” said conservative political strategist Michael Baker.

“Some states that require some backup documentation merely ask for a utility bill or a driver’s license — neither of which prove citizenship. In other words, legal or illegal aliens can easily register to vote in local and national elections,” warns Baker.

According to a Congressional study of voter fraud, other challenges such as identifying duplicate registrations in other states or having insufficient information to match other data sources with voter registration lists may continue to be issues.
< http://www,gao.gov/htext/d05478.html >

While federal data sources have the potential to help state election officials identify registrants who may be convicted felons or non-citizens, few states communicate with federal agencies such as the Homeland Security Department’s immigration section.

Many government officials — mostly liberals — claim that illegal aliens voting is not a major problem, conservative activists respond that while the potential number identified may be small, an election can be decided by a few votes. In 2004, the presidential race between Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush was decided by a few hundred votes in Florida.

“While the news media perpetuated the assertion that Bush and the GOP ’stole’ the election, it could very well have been illegal aliens voting in Florida that made the outcome so close,” said former NYPD cop, now security firm owner, Sid Francis.

“Bush may have beaten Gore by more votes if illegals were excluded, since immigrants tend to vote for Democrats. Or Gore could have won decisively had there been prior screening before people were allowed into the voting booths,” said Det. Francis.

“There was absolutely no mention in the mainstream media regarding suspected voter fraud by illegal or legal aliens. It was much easier for the agenda-driven newspeople to accuse Republicans of stealing the election,” added Baker.

“Florida is not unique. Thousands of non-citizens are registered to vote in some states, and tens if not hundreds of thousands in total may be present on the voter rolls nationwide. These numbers are significant: Local elections are often decided by only a handful of votes, and even national elections have likely been within the margin of the number of non-citizens illegally registered to vote,” said Hans A. von Spakovsky, a researcher at the Heritage Foundation.

“There is no reliable method to determine the number of non-citizens registered or actually voting because most laws to ensure that only citizens vote are ignored, are inadequate, or are systematically undermined by government officials. Those who ignore the implications of non-citizen registration and voting either are willfully blind to the problem or may actually favor this form of illegal voting,” said Spakovsky, an expert on the subject of illegal aliens and immigration law, during an interview on Fox News Channel.

As far as felons, US Attorneys are required to notify state election officials of federal felony convictions, but the information is not always easy for election officials to interpret or complete, according to New Jersey GOP strategist Janice Martin.

“Americans would be shocked to discover that hundreds of thousands of general election voters are illegal aliens, green-card immigrants, and criminals who’ve murdered, raped and robbed US citizens. And guess which political party benefits the most from their votes? The one that’s pushing for amnesty and a bag full of free goodies,” said Martin.

Dr. von Spakovsky believes many government officials and politicians are complicit in the voter fraud problem.

“To keep non-citizens from diluting citizens’ votes, immigration and election officials must cooperate far more effectively than they have to date, and state and federal officials must increase their efforts to enforce the laws against non-citizen voting that are already on the books,” he wrote in his Heritage Foundation study on illegal alien voter fraud. < http://www.heritage.org/ >

“While the liberal media and the liberal establishment ignore what is a huge scandal, American voters are having their rights violated. When an illegal aliens or felon or other person prohibited by law to vote, their votes cancels out those of American citizens,” warns Baker.

“Liberals want illegal aliens and felons to vote. They benefit from such rampant fraud.”

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org).  In addition, he’s the new editor for the House Conservatives Fund’s weblog. Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty. 

He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations.  He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.   Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com.  He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com.   He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.  His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri’s own website is located at http://jimkouri.us

The candidate of change, the shining proponent of a “new way” in national politics, says that you aren’t allowed to bring a sign to his rally. So much for the right of free political speech. To add insult to injury, this rally was held at the publicly funded University of Mary Washington in Fredericksburg, Virginia. So, now the government is lending the weight of its authority to squelch free speech. So, where is the hue and cry about this unAmerican activity? Did the media even note this heavy-handed policy?

But, it is all true nonetheless. The rally was held and weak-spined school officials bent over and meekly accepted the rules derived from the fascistic penchant of the Obama campaign with its anti-first amendment proclivities. Some few small voices questioned this oppression of American rights, but for the most part no one seems to have noticed that Virginians had their Constitutional rights quashed that day. Shockingly, some even thought it was a good idea.

The Obama campaign, falling back on the oldest dodge in the book, claimed that campaign signs were not allowed because of “security concerns.” Who can doubt, though, that it was instead because of “camera concerns”? The Obama campaign was far more interested in photo ops clear of McCain signs or other unwanted reminders that there are other opinions out there among the unwashed masses than that of sycophancy for The One.

On one hand, I see the logic in a campaign making sure that it controls the atmosphere of a campaign stop. It’s only good sense. And if this control were to be exerted on private property with the full acceptance and participation of the property owners, well who can deny that? But it wasn’t. This rally happened on public land.

Now, let us harken back to the “reason” that Sarah Palin was refused the podium at the anti-Iran rally last week, shall we? She was denied because of the so-called “equal time” rule, remember? This is a shadowy “rule” that seems to state that no politician may speak in public unless his opponent also appears to speak.

So, one wonders: did the University of Mary Washington invite the McCain campaign to the rally with Obama? And if not, why not? After all, this is a publicly funded institution. Are we to accept that such a place would violate that sacrosanct “equal time” rule? Are we to believe that a place funded by our money not only didn’t invite the opposing candidate, but used its publicly derived authority to squelch free speech by disallowing signs?

I suppose we’ll have to believe such a thing, after all.

Of course, the media doesn’t mind. Who can deny that such heavy-handed campaign policies smoothes the waters for their messiah. I can only chuckle at this. I mean, Obama is the first messiah that needs average men to smooth the waters for him instead of being all powerful enough to smooth them himself. How shallow must be the water he walks upon?

No wonder Obama’s campaign posters remind one of Stalinist propaganda.

(The following article is based on information obtained by the National Association of Chiefs of Police’s National Security Committee.)

The Energy Security Leadership Council (ESLC), a project of Securing America’s Future Energy (SAFE), yesterday released A National Strategy for Energy Security, a comprehensive plan that offers the public and policymakers specific solutions to the very real threats posed by our nation’s dependence on oil.

The National Strategy lays out a pathway toward a long-term goal of an electrified transportation system that is no longer dependent on oil, along with the interim policies needed to reach that goal while keeping our economy and our nation strong and secure.

“Our oil dependence has put our nation at unacceptable risk,” ESLC Co-Chairman Frederick W. Smith, Chairman, President and CEO of FedEx Corp., said.

“The plan we are offering today includes details about exactly how we can reduce that risk. Most important, we must electrify our transportation system to end its complete dependence on oil. But that is not a simple task, which is why we lay out the specific steps needed to reach it. It is also a goal that will take many years to reach, which is why we recommend policies — including expanded domestic supply of oil and natural gas, reformed and improved fuel economy standards, and increased support for R&D — that will strengthen our economic and national security while we work toward the long-term goal,” he said.

“Our safety and our prosperity are in peril,” ESLC Co-Chairman General P.X. Kelley (Ret.), 28th Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, said. “Yet too many look for scapegoats or offer half-measures. Blaming someone else is not a solution, and half of a plan is not a plan. The report we are releasing today is the culmination of six months of careful, in-depth examination of our oil dependence and the ways to reduce it. This plan is unique: it is bold, it is comprehensive, it is detailed, and it has the unanimous support of the business and military leaders on the Energy Security Leadership Council.”

The Energy Security Leadership Council is a group of business leaders and retired senior military officers who are committed to improving America’s energy security. They have received strong praise from lawmakers, particularly for their 2006 Recommendations to the Nation on Reducing US Oil Dependence, which helped to shape the landmark Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA).

“SAFE and the Energy Security Leadership Council have become an important part of our nation’s energy debate. Their commitment and their effectiveness have made them valuable partners in the ongoing effort to pass comprehensive legislation to improve our nation’s energy security. I look forward to continuing to work with them as we tackle these vital issues together,” Senator John Thune (R-SD) said.

The National Strategy for Energy Security is the natural successor to the 2006 Recommendations. This set of recommendations, however, encompasses an even bolder vision than in 2006, by proposing specific policies in the following areas:

 --  Electrifying the U.S. transportation sector to diversify energy       supplies   --  Accelerating the development and deployment of new energy-related       technology   --  Reducing demand for oil through improved vehicle efficiency   --  Increasing energy access through expanded domestic supply   --  Managing risks and global issues

Web Site: http://www.secureenergy.org/

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org).  In addition, he’s the new editor for the House Conservatives Fund’s weblog. Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty. 

He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations.  He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.   Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com.  He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com.   He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.  His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri’s own website is located at http://jimkouri.us

Bill Fletcher is all about the wringing of hands over the corruption scandal of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and is afraid that it will get in the way of the upcoming presidential campaign. Fletcher, a long time union activist, pseudo “Africanist,” anti-American, and anti-Jew agitator, who is also a self described “socialist,”, and Barack Obama volunteer, was interviewed recently on the website of the extremist organization Democracy Now.

Little of what he had to say is of much surprise or interest nor is there any truth to it. It is filled with your run-of-the-mill psychotic hate for business and the U.S.A. like the content of all of his interviews. But, his lament about the troubled SEIU is interesting… maybe even heartening for those who wish to see the union curtailed.

Talking about the late split between the AFL-CIO, Fletcher likened that instance to some of the troubles the SEIU is having with the Washington Office’s attack on its California Local, the United Healtcare Workers-West (UHW-W).

In SEIU, as you mentioned, what we’re witnessing is, in the West Coast there have been allegations of very serious corruption among locals that have been allied very strongly with SEIU President Andy Stern, and in the middle of this, this absurd attack on one of the largest SEIU locals by the SEIU President Andy Stern—and this is United Healthcare Workers-West–an attack that comes at absolutely the worst time, in an attempt to trustee the local, that is, to take it over by the international.

Fletcher says how earlier in the year, many in the labor movement had thought the UHW workers were being “paranoid” with their worry that Andy Stern of the SEIU was out to get them. Fletcher remembers saying to members of the UHW that, “No, no, no. You’re paranoid. This is ridiculous!” But, now that Stern has pretty much proven that he is, indeed, out to get them, everyone is shocked and surprised as well as saddened.

On one hand, Fletcher is worried that this whole thing will detract from the unions being effective in helping out Barack Obama’s campaign for the White House and, on the other — and as is his boringly prosaic penchant — he thinks it ultimately comes down to race.

I know. Race, you ask? It makes your head spin, right?

First his thoughts on the SEIU’s internal fight:

… if SEIU goes forward with this ridiculous idea of a trusteeship of United Healthcare Workers-West, they are going to have to dedicate many staff to dealing with this situation, because the members of that local are very, very clear: they’re not accepting a trusteeship. So what that means is that people that could otherwise be around the country working on various campaigns are going to be tied up in trying to impose this trusteeship. This is going to be absolutely horrible.

Let’s hope that this internal fight really does distract the power mad, thug in the SEIU’s Washington office, Andy Stern, from exerting his baleful influence on the elections. Stern is definitely proving that he’ll allow NO other voice but his own to be heard in his little fiefdom. His sort of dictatorial attitude is not needed in politics.

But, more absurdly, Fletcher sees the racist boogyman behind the SEIU’s internal fight. See, it isn’t mere power that is driving the SEIU fight, it’s “racism.” Why, it MUST be thinks Fletch. After all, if these union members weren’t all racists, why they’d put aside their petty differences to elect Barack Obama to the White House. That they are allowing their little power grabs to distract them, well it’s all because they are racists, Fletcher posits.

Just look at the mental sickness that is Fletcher…

But the other problem that goes a little bit beyond this, Juan, is that within the union movement there is this question of race that is starting—a few months ago, started to be raised by some leaders, including, and very notably, AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka, but also by other leaders who have encountered resistance among a segment of the white membership to the idea of backing Obama for the presidency. And we can see it around the country, that there is this squeamishness in some sectors about pushing the envelope in terms of supporting the Obama candidacy. Actually, more than anything else, this concerns me. The SEIU situation in California is horrible, and I think it’s absurd that there would be any thought of a trusteeship, but this issue of race, which for years union leaders have refused to talk about, beyond this idea of diversity–you taste my food, I’ll taste yours–we haven’t confronted this issue of race.

And so, now what do we have? People saying, “Well, you know, I’m not sure whether I really want to support him,” when the basic question is simple: are you better off now than you were eight years ago? And if you are not, then you had better be supporting Senator Obama. Yet, this is–there’s some squeamishness, as I noted. And so, I think this, over the next several weeks, this will be the critical question. And I’m hoping that unions on both sides of the split will be forthright in tackling this question. Let’s not play any games. The race card, the race issue, is central in this race. There’s no question about it.

Have you ever seen a more convoluted, absurd conspiracy theory in your life? In a nation where blacks head the largest corporations, are the most famous entertainers, politicians, teachers and artists… this guy thinks we are all racists? Have we not come an inch past 1950? For that matter is this still a climate just like that of the Antebellum South!?

Remember an important point here. Fletcher isn’t talking about we Republicans. He’s talking about his own, Democratic Party, union members. It is they he is claiming are the racists.

I dearly, dearly hope that this agitator, this socialist hate spreader, does succeed in spreading his bile in amongst unions. It can only serve to really help put them at each other’s throats in vitriolic self-hate. They are beginning to feed on each other folks. Let’s hope they keep it up!

Contrary to popular belief, conservative Christian pastors have never been monolithic in their willingness to engage in anything close to partisan political activity in their churches. The stereotypical perception of the “religious right” in America is a myth. I know. I was there in the cultural trenches in the mid-1990s, trying to inform Christian voters of the records of the candidates for office.

As a state executive director and organizer for one of the largest pro-life, pro-family organizations in the country, I was frustrated constantly by the reticence of pastors to allow even a simple, informative voter guide to be placed into their church bulletins. A handful was bold enough to speak out. Some were willing to allow the voter guides. Most were just plain timid and afraid.

Afraid of what? Why, the IRS, of course — or, as my great aunt used to refer to it, “the Infernal Revenue Service.”

Far too many on the Christian right have been bamboozled into believing that it is somehow against the law to engage in any sort of political activity whatsoever within the four walls of a church. In fact, many pastors are so paranoid about it they shun vital information that could help their congregations know right from wrong once they get into the voting booth.

Now comes word that a tiny cadre of three dozen or so activist pastors, working in conjunction with the Arizona-based religious rights legal firm known as the Alliance Defense Fund, are not only exercising their constitutional rights but also stand ready to challenge a 1954 amendment to the tax code that says nonprofit, tax-exempt entities may not “participate in or intervene in…any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office.”

These church leaders have come to realize that there is nothing in the law that forbids them, as pastors, from telling their congregations whom they personally endorse — and why. And they are challenging the notion that they should be proscribed from putting forth a church endorsement based on a candidate’s positions on issues that may be contrary to the moral teaching of that church.

One of these pastors is the Rev. Ron Johnson, Jr., of Crown Point, Indiana, who says that ministers of the Gospel have a responsibility to guide their flocks in worldly matters, including politics.

“The issue,” says Rev. Johnson, “is not ‘Are we legislating morality?’ The issue is, ‘Whose morality are we legislating?’”

Although he has stopped short of endorsing Republican John McCain, Rev. Johnson has rightly told his congregation that Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama’s positions on abortion and homosexual relationships are “in direct opposition to God’s truth as He has revealed it in the Scriptures” and has shown slides in his church contrasting the two candidates’ views on key issues important to pro-family voters.

Of course, the Religious Left, especially as it has traditionally promoted liberal Democrats in black churches across the country, has been engaging in highly partisan political activity for as long as many of us can remember. In one particularly blatant case, I recall an inner city church van covered with political posters of Democrat candidates encouraging black voters to “vote Democrat.”

This van was sent out into the community to register Democrats, transport them to the polls and bring them to a makeshift Democrat campaign headquarters being run out of the church basement. When the state Republican Party chairman took photos of the van and sent them to the local news media, they were officially ignored.

It is encouraging to see a small but determined group of Godly men and women reach out to their congregations with the truth about Barack Obama’s radical political views and culturally toxic voting record. It is time for evangelical Christians to stop being taken in by lofty rhetoric. It is time for men of God to stand up and be heard on the great issues of our time.
____________________________________________________________________________

© Copyright 2008 by Doug Patton
____________________________________________________________________________

Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a political speechwriter and public policy advisor. His weekly columns are published in newspapers across the country and on selected Internet web sites, including Human Events Online, TheConservativeVoice.com and GOPUSA.com, where he is a senior writer and state editor. Readers may e-mail him at dougpatton@cox.net.
____________________________________________________________________________

When Barack Obama positions himself as a fiscal conservative, he’s not just kidding around. He fully expects the voters to accept this characterization, as evidenced by the tax plan from his campaign’s website. The six-page policy statement evokes the name of Ronald Reagan five times, while promising to cut the taxes of 95 percent of all Americans.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has released a draft proposal of the “save the United States” plan for government to nationalize a large segment of our economy, seemingly agreed to by those we had assumed represent Democrat opponents. Here are the sound bites we will here on TV about the plan:

The ultimate example of opportunistic politics before good government was displayed in Washington over the past several days. Political operatives from both sides of the aisle did everything in their power to create a government-based solution to the financial crisis facing our country; a government-created problem. In the end the US House of Representatives voted down the highly contentious Wall Street bailout bill mostly due to the fact that we are within the 30-day window when voters do not forget actions taken by their elected officials. If only the public’s attention were always so focused.

Many in our citizenry viewed the now-dead proposal as a “no fault” measure that would have allowed those responsible for this financial malfeasance to escape culpability and with good reason. Watching US Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and US Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) – along with their leadership, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senior Senator from New York, Charles Schumer – harangue about how Democrats were taking the lead in crafting “bi-partisan” legislation to “rescue” the average American from the evils of Wall Street was the ultimate exercise in political hypocrisy.

Frank and Dodd, both chairmen of their respective committees that over see the financial community on matters directly related to this crisis and the malfeasance that brought us to this point, were derelict in their duties not only as chairmen charged with oversight, but in their duties to their respective constituencies in that they were not providing good government.

Jimmy Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act, is defined as:

Bill Clinton continued this march to financial disaster with his National Homeownership Initiative, which saw Community Reinvestment Act mortgage loans explode by 39 percent from 1993 to 1998. In comparison other loans increased by a market bearing 17 percent.

Much to the chagrin of the mainstream news media and the Democrats who are cohesive in their propaganda in that they are placing the blame for this financial debacle at the feet of President Bush and congressional Republicans (and let’s not forget their never-ending attempt to marry every crisis to John McCain), the president, John McCain and congressional republicans were sounding the alarm on this looming crisis ever since 2001. In fact, the GOP controlled Senate passed a bill out of committee in 2005 increasing oversight on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac only to see it stonewalled by the Senate Democrats when it came time to move it out of committee and to the Senate floor for a vote.

The solution for this “crisis” rests with the people, not the government; government will be responsible for repealing Bill Clinton’s National Homeownership Initiative and eliminating Jimmy Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act, and disciplining US Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd for their dereliction of duty with regard to their obligation to provide congressional oversight.

White House
President George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington DC
Email: president@whitehouse.gov
Comments: (202) 456-1111
Switchboard: (202) 456-1414
FAX: (202) 456-2461

US Senate
CHYPERLINK “http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001GXZ8Xvlm33tU_nDgX0zIPjlMKjCmpJ7wDRipMbu4jA4sUHR_v_7NP1QgNAMnxIXa9On_ewkTQMpWWLols7WWufttC1a-MjSRvYzy-1c7NZAU6Z8LdMMwYOqTR9b4Xt0vUhdaL84XmZlI69GjBEVQfHPlfaf4Pnwp”lick Here to access contact information for your US Senators

Media
Click Here for a comprehensive, state-by-state database of media contacts.
Frank Salvato is the Executive Director and Director of Terrorism Research for BasicsProject.org a non-profit, non-partisan, 501(c)(3) research and education initiative. His writing has been recognized by the US House International Relations Committee and the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention. His organization, BasicsProject.org, partnered in producing the original national symposium series addressing the root causes of radical Islamist terrorism. He also serves as the managing editor for The New Media Journal. Mr. Salvato has appeared on The O’Reilly Factor on FOX News Channel and is a regular guest on talk radio including on The Right Balance with Greg Allen on the Accent Radio Network and on The Captain’s America Radio Show catering to the US Armed Forces around the world. His opinion-editorials have been published by The American Enterprise Institute, The Washington Times & Human Events and are syndicated nationally. He is occasionally quoted in The Federalist. Mr. Salvato is available for public speaking engagements. He can be contacted at newmediajournal@comcast.net.