Amusing Clown Show by Democracy-NC

(Raleigh, NC) MAY 13, 2014–Yesterday’s amusing demonstration by the Soros Circus Clowns at Democracy NC underscores how desperate Progressives are to change the subject when it comes to election fraud. “Repeat after me,” they say, “these are not the droids you’re looking for.”

Their cutesy trick involved them finding four politicians whose names and DOBs matched the voter rolls in two states. Good fodder for a slow news day, the act earned media and helped Democracy NC push their bullying message: The Legislature had better not mess with election law this time around . . . or . . . or . . . we’ll sue you again!

To which, I have to say, nice try, kids. You may be highly skilled at suckering the media into covering your stunts, but our research leaves you guys in the dust. In case you missed it, the same reporters who fawned all over yesterday’s D-NC circus act were too busy to cover the VIP-NC report of 147 people who either voted twice in November 2012 or were victims of identity theft in one state while lawfully voting in the other. 

We’re still working with lawyers to determine how much detail we can release to the public, but the 22 researchers on this particular project found corroborating information that tied each voter to the same identity in both FL and NC (we call them FLANC) and . . .  oh by the way . . . every one of these people had votes cast in their names in both states during the same Presidential election.

That’s right. While vote fraud deniers love to distract the public with discussions of double registrations, we prefer to stick to the main issue: election fraud. These FLANC voters were somehow involved in it, but the fraud was either as a perp or as a victim and the victim issue is the 800-pound gorilla that Progressives studiously avoid.

We scratched our heads when such an important message was buried in the (11th paragraph) N&O account of yesterday’s D-NC circus act. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along. Note how the poor N&O writer was duped by “election officials” who blurred in a whole bunch of innocuous scenarios that may account for 3 to 5 percent of the evidence while tip-toeing past the most important reason later in this paragraph:

Elections officials have said poll workers’ attribution of votes to the wrong people, data entry errors, naturally occurring instances of voters with the same names and birth dates, identity theft and voting fraud are all possible explanations. – Patrick Gannon (for the N&O)

(Hmmm. We can only speculate who the “officials” were but this accidentally shows the public how difficult it must be for SBoE Director, Kim Strach, when she has moles who actively feed the media with narratives designed to undercut her message. I’d fire the rats, but that’s just me. Imagine having to oversee any employees who get up everyday, scheming on how they can stab you in the back and then you will understand the office politics when Republicans and Conservatives work in government . . . but I digress.)

In early April, Kim Strach drew back the secrecy on this national scandal with her stunning report about the tens of thousands of voters whose identities matched (to one degree or another) and who seem to have voted twice in the same November 2012 election (see pages 34-5). A hefty 35,750 had matching first name, last name and DOB while 765 had those three matches PLUS the same last four of their social security numbers (called “SSN-4” in the business) and, lest we skip over one small detail . . . there is evidence suggesting these people either voted in two states during the November 2012 election or somebody voted for them in one of the states.

Analysis: Based on our proprietary research into FLANC voters, we believe about a third of the 35,750 will wind up being coincidental matches (the only kind that D-NC is allowed to discuss), but the other two thirds will either have matching signatures on the four documents that could lead to prosecution or the signatures won’t match. If they match, it’s enough evidence to prosecute the voter (assuming the DA cares); but it’s important to understand this key point: Even if the signatures don’t match, a fraud still occurred; but it was identity thief. . . and under NC’s fraud-friendly election law, that’s a crime for which nobody can be prosecuted.

In Progressive Pretzel logic, lack of prosecution means no fraud occurred; but in cases of identity theft, NC election law has been carefully designed NOT to protect the victim–but to protect person stealing the voter’s identity.  If there’s nobody to prosecute, then a crime didn’t occur! Requiring voter ID would make ID theft a lot harder to commit, but allowing streaming video of the people walking in to vote would make it at least possible to prosecute the people actually committing the crime.

Here’s how:

Current NC law prohibits almost all photography inside the “voting enclosure,” so visual documentation of this crime in-progress is still illegal. The ban (crafted by the single party in control of the NC Legislature for more than 100 years) is there to protect the voter’s “privacy,” which is a magic word used in most Progressive incantations. Substitute in the word “secrecy” and you will understand their true intent. Just blogging out loud, but we should demand such “privacy” in banks too. That way nobody will rob banks anymore. After all, if there’s no evidence that can help prosecute the perp, then a crime didn’t happen! Besides, it’s probably just an administrative error.

Inside the Legislature:

When I asked one particular Republican politician to seriously consider changing that secretive photography ban, he cynically asked, “do you really want drones at every voting location?”

No, Representative Smarty Pants. I just want people committing vote fraud to have a reasonable chance of getting caught! Is that too much to ask? Could we please draw back the secrecy and bring in some sunshine?!

We will have a lot more to report on our push for streaming video at election polls and on our FLANC project, so please keep an eye on this site in the coming days and weeks.