Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Chancellor Dennis Walcott backs PS 90 Principal Greta Hawkins song choice

NEW York City Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott is standing behind

a Brooklyn principal's controversial decision to pull the plug on a popular

patriotic song that was scheduled to be performed at a kindergarten graduation.

[He should be standing behind her pushing her out the front door, with a pink slip in her hand.]


PS 90 Principal Greta Hawkins won't allow the boys and girls to belt out Lee Greenwood's ballad "God Bless the USA" because it is not "age appropriate."  [Age appropriate??  These are Kindergarteners and she thinks the words to Justin Bieber's song 'Baby'?  I think this says a lot about the mental capabilities of Ms. Hawkins.]

And Mr Walcott said that is fine by him. [ A loss for words!!!!  This guy is as mentally deficent as Ms. Hawkins]

"It's her judgment to make that decision," Mr Walcott said. "It's important to reinforce that they start out the morning every day of the school year with the Pledge of Allegiance and America the Beautiful, and that, to me, is what this country is about, and they celebrate that, and that's how we should start our day.  [What does starting the morning have to do with a program for the graduation ceremonies??  It would seem to me that if the kids are starting the morning by saying the Pledge of Allegiance and American the Beautiful, then this song, God Bless the USA makes more sense than Justin Bieber's song.  While it may be "her judgment to make that decision", it's Mr. Walcott's job to oversee the decisions she makes.  And if they are wrong, as this one is, then he needs to over ride her.]

"You have to really wonder about some of the lyrics in the song, so I have to rely on the principal's judgment along that line."  [Say WHAT?!?!?!!?????  What's to wonder about????  Lee Greenwood's song is filled with lyrics that are patriotic while Bieber's song contains lyrics that teenagers can understand but not kindergarteners.]

Mr Walcott was responding to the New York Post's story about Hawkins' unpopular decision to ditch the song for the June 20 moving-up ceremony.

It was replaced on the playlist with Justin Bieber's Baby, a flirty song about teenage romance.  [And we're dealing with 5 year olds????]

At issue, according to a Department of Education spokeswoman, are lyrics from the tune's opening verse, "If tomorrow all the things were gone/I'd worked for all my life/And I had to start again/with just my children and my wife."

They were deemed inappropriate for the five-year-old children.  [Honestly I think the 5 year olds understand the lyrics to Lee Greenwood's song better than Mr. Walcott or Ms. Hawkins.]

Staffers quoted Ms Hawkins as saying, "We don't want to offend other cultures." [Ms. Hawkins should be more concerned about the millions of Americans she's offending and not a handful of "other cultures", which are probably illegal aliens to start with.]

Parents and teachers angry over Ms Hawkins' decision launched a Facebook page demanding she be sacked.
[And angry they should be.  Every parent with children in that school should be at the front door of the school voicing their disgust with Ms. Hawkins and those above her who will not get this song re-instated.] 

"If the DOE has any brains they should remove her tomorrow," seethed one angry anonymous staffer in a posting. "We were the victims of 9/11. It hit New York really hard. That song became famous because of that tragedy. Removing that song is horrific. It's opening the wound again."  [Therein is the problem.  The DOE wouldn't know what a brain is if they were holding one in their hands]

Ms Hawkins could not be reached for comment. [I wonder why not?]

{Re-post from:} http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/chancellor-dennis-walcott-backs-ps-90-principal-greta-hawkins-song-choice/story-e6frfku0-1226392457701#ixzz1xe6MioYd

 

Related articles, courtesy of Zemanta:


    Posted by at No comments:
    Labels:

    Monday, June 11, 2012

    Holder admits Axelrod, White House helped Justice Dept craft Fast and Furious public relations strategy



    Continuing in the world of daily lies, we find Mr. Attorney General, Eric Holder, still on the 'hot-seat' concerning the 'Fast and Furious Operation'.  
    {Re-post from The Daily Caller}
    Axelrod helped craft Justice Dept's Fast & Furious PR strat | The Daily Caller

    Holder admits Axelrod, White House helped Justice Dept craft Fast and Furious public relations strategy

    Published: 1:32 PM 06/07/2012
    WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 11: U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder at the Department of Justice on April 11, 2012 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Brendan Hoffman/Getty Images)
    Attorney General Eric Holder admitted on Thursday that President Barack Obama’s chief campaign strategist David Axelrod and the White House are helping the Department of Justice craft its messaging about Operation Fast and Furious.
    “We [Holder, Axelrod and the White House] have certainly talked about ways in which we could deal with the interaction between the Justice Department and Congress — about ways in which we would,” Holder said in questioning before the House Judiciary Committee.
    Virginia Republican Rep. Randy Forbes pressed Holder further by asking him if Axelrod, Obama’s re-election campaign and the White House were involved in crafting the DOJ’s policy for dealing with press. He said they were. “In terms of trying to get any message out that was consistent with facts and make sure it was done in an appropriate way, I’ve had conversations like that with people in the White House.”
    Watch:



    Forbes was pressing Holder on the recent reports that he and Axelrod almost got into a physical altercation in the West Wing in early 2009. Holder said the allegation that he and Axelrod almost fought — before Obama’s senior adviser Valerie Jarrett broke it up — was slightly mischaracterized. Axelrod was reportedly trying to get Holder to hire political staff to influence law enforcement. Holder said the conversation was about a communications strategy, “not hiring decisions.”
    “We talked about not hiring decisions, but ways we might improve the ability of the Justice Department to respond to political attacks coming my way,” Holder said of the incident, adding that he considers Axelrod a “close friend of mine.”
    “We have a great relationship,” Holder said. “He’s a person I respect a great deal. We worked together on the campaign, and at the White House, but he’s never done anything I would consider inappropriate.”
    Holder said he’s sought help from Obama’s political advisers, too, when he’s come under criticism.
    “There’s a political dimension to the job that I have as attorney general,” Holder said. “The reality is that I don’t sit up in an ivory tower and just do law enforcement. I am the subject of attacks and a person who is seen by some as a person who is controversial. And there are times – at least there was that time – where I was looking for some help in that regard.”
    The mainstream media has — for the most part — offered sympathetic coverage of Holder and has hardly covered Fast and Furious in depth. Others haven’t covered it all. For instance, on Thursday morning, Politico’s Morning Score, Huddle and Playbook all made no mention of Holder’s pending appearance before the House Judiciary Committee.
    Also, New York Times reporter Charlie Savage violated his publication’s own ethics policy this week while offering favorable Fast and Furious coverage to Holder — in an article that was false. Savage has not publicly been held accountable by the Times.




    Related articles, courtesy of Zemanta:
    Enhanced by Zemanta
    Posted by at No comments:
    Labels: , ,

    Sunday, June 10, 2012

    What a truly honest Muslim sounds like

    {Re-post from Bare Naked Islam}

    In case you have never seen or heard one, this is what a truly honest Muslim sounds like

    Posted: June 10, 2012 | Author:  

    Jihad is both religious and political. Islam is primarily a political doctrine, not a religious doctrine. For instance, the Koran is more concerned with the unbeliever, the kafir, than it is the believer. It spends 61% of its time disparaging the kafir, only 39% of the Koran is about Islam and the Muslim.

    The Koran goes into enormous detail about the unbeliever, the kafir. Allah despises the kafir. Allah plots against the kafir. The Koran says that the kafir can be crucified, tortured, kidnapped, abused, raped, stolen from, and punished. There are many, many references to the kafir in the Koran. Remember 61% of it is devoted to the kafir.

    The political nature of being a kafir always puts the kafir in Hell, not because he did anything that was morally wrong such as theft or murder, but simply because the kafir did not believe that Mohammed was the prophet of Allah.  The other basic thing about Islam is that it does not have the Golden Rule.

    Indeed Islam denies the truth of the Golden Rule. In Islam there is no such thing as humanity. Instead the world is always seen as being divided into the kafir and the believer. Humanity is not seen as one body.

    Islam instead is based upon a different principle than the Golden Rule. Islam is based upon submission and duality. Submission because the word Islam means submission and that all others must submit to Islam. Now all others having to submit to Islam is a political statement. The political aspect of submission is that the kafir must submit to the Muslim and Islam. 

    Political Islam is very effective. There have been over 270 million people killed by Jihad over the last 1400 years – that’s 60 million Christians, 80 million Hindus, 10 million Buddhists and 120 million Africans of varying religions. Islam has also been very successful in the business of slavery. For 1400 years it has enslaved the kafir and we will have an entire lesson on how Islam has enslaved the European, the African and the Asian. Political Islam is a phenomenally successful political ideology. READ MORE

    Posted by at No comments:
    Labels: ,

    Sunday, May 20, 2012

    Obama calls nation to rebel against God ... where are our ministers?

    Obama calls nation to rebel against God ... where are our ministers?

    Peter Heck - Guest Columnist - 5/15/2012 10:05:00 AM

     

    Peter HeckLast week, the President of the United States of America called his people to outright rebellion against the Word and will of Almighty God. Did your minister say anything about it this week?

     

     

     

    About 1:00 on Sunday afternoon, I found myself sitting in the grocery store parking lot with the kids in the back of the van, waiting on my wife. While the two girls were entertaining themselves, I picked up the phone and called my minister. I left him a voicemail thanking him for taking the time during his sermon to say what needed to be said: that regardless of what your political philosophy may be, every believer in America should be incensed that the leader of our country has called for a national embrace of a behavior that God Himself reserved the word "abomination" to describe.

    In an era where ministers are increasingly turning towards fulfilling the words of the book of Timothy, where they say only what "itching ears want to hear," I felt like my minister needed some encouragement for having the courage to speak the truth in an increasingly dark generation. If your minister did the same, please give them a call or email of support. They deserve it.

    In my book '78: How Christians Can Save America', I write about the fascinating reality that we've come to in our country today: when a doctor fails to treat our illness properly, we have no hesitation about filing malpractice or at least switching doctors. When our financial adviser makes poor decisions with our money, we have no hesitation about switching control to a different investment guru. But when ministers fail to stand on the authority of God's Word and speak the full truth to difficult circumstances, we so often give them a pass. Does this not seem to indicate that we are more concerned with our physical and financial health than our spiritual health? If so, God help us.

    There is no avoiding the reality that this president, through his allegiance to the sexual anarchists of the left, has brought our country to a crossroads. Mr. Obama suggests moving in one direction; God's Word and the Natural, Moral Law it represents calls us to move in another. I cannot fathom how such a moment could possibly evade the awareness and conscious of this country's ministers. There are undoubtedly some good reasons why the topic didn't come up this week at church that don't include a fear of standing on truth. But if your minister did not mention it, it's completely appropriate to ask yourself -- and him/her -- why.

    I compiled as many reasons as I could, and personally, would find them wanting. Perhaps ministers were in the middle of a series, and this reality didn't fit the flow of what they were preaching on. Can't exceptions be made when the fate of our civilization hangs in the balance? Perhaps that seems dramatic, but all one has to do is to peruse the historical record of Scripture to see that God, while slow to anger when cultures do not perfectly abide His calls to care for the poor and the less fortunate, does not abide a society that embraces and celebrates sexual depravity.

    Perhaps those ministers who didn't mention this reality were simply unaware of what the president did last week. That isn't any better. Our ministers are to call us to be a generation like that of the Sons of Issachar -- a generation that "understands the times" and knows what our civilization must do. An increasing number of ministers, however, is steering clear of the issues that affect their flocks the most. When they do, they allow the world to define those issues and that direction ... not good. Perhaps that's why there are an increasing number of churched people who are confused about these issues -- or worse, find sin acceptable.

    Perhaps it was because this last Sunday was Mother's Day. And what does the public embrace of homosexuality have to do with that, after all? Quite a lot, actually. In fact, it's difficult to imagine a more appropriate time to bring it up. Consider what we are honoring on Mother's Day -- the irreplaceable role that a mom plays in the life of her child. We honor the significant role that moms play in shaping our culture by the influence they exert over their children's hearts and minds. We implicitly recognize that there are things that God has gifted moms to be able to do that dads just can't provide. Yet, there is the President of the United States trampling such an idea -- suggesting that there is nothing superior about the combination of a mom and dad to any other potential arrangement. All a child needs is two loving parents. Barack knows better than God, after all.

    Unfortunately, the most likely rationale our ministers had in not mentioning Barack Obama's call to rebellion against God is that they didn't want the controversy. After all, offended people don't readily contribute to the offering plates. Given how harsh that may sound, it should be noted that ministers in this generation are dealing with a reality that previous generations did not have to confront. In previous American generations, most ministers could know that when speaking the truth of Scripture, they would have the support of a heavily Judeo-Christian civilization. They did not have the threats or the resistance of a non-biblical, non-Christian culture pushing back against them. This generation of ministers does. They are coming to understand what countless ministers of the Gospel throughout the world have known for some time -- that there comes a point where we must choose between honoring God ... or honoring man. In an increasingly post-Christian America, ministers of Christ will come to understand what Jesus meant when He said, "Men will hate you because of me." Standing on truth has not cost us in the past -- at least here in America. That day is quickly coming to a close.

    In a very real way, then, we are seeing the separating of the wheat from the chaff in this country's churches. We are seeing which ones will remain righteous and committed to God's Word despite the changing environment around them. We are seeing which ones have built their foundation upon the Rock and which ones have constructed themselves upon the shifting sands. We are seeing which ones are interested in seeking the applause of men and which ones are committed to receiving the applause of heaven.

    Did your minister mention the fact that our nation's leader called his people to rebel against the authority of God? If not, you owe it to yourself, to your minister, to your church and to your country to politely, but forcefully ask them: "Why?"

    Related articles, courtesy of Zemanta:
    Posted by at No comments:

    NJ GOVERNOR CHRIS CHRISTIE for VP? Don’t let Mitt Romney choose a running mate with dirty Islamist ties

    NJ GOVERNOR CHRIS CHRISTIE for VP? Don’t let Mitt Romney choose a running mate with dirty Islamist ties

    Author: 

    BNI has posted these stories in the past, but here is a good summary of Christie’s repugnant, over- the-top support for Muslims with terrorist ties and whose loyalties are to Islam, not America, as well as his disparagement of those who oppose the recognition of sharia law by US Courts.

    Daniel Pipes (H/T Frederic F)  A Quinnipiac poll in April showed Chris Christie the most popular potential Republican vice-presidential candidate, thanks to his budget cuts and standing up to government employee unions. But the governor of New Jersey has a problem, specifically an Islam problem, in the way of his possible ascent to higher office. We regret to report that, time and again, he has sided with Islamist forces against those safeguarding American security and civilization.

    Some examples:

    2008: When serving as U.S. attorney for New Jersey, Christie embraced and kissed Mohammed Qatanani, imam of the Islamic Center of Passaic County, and praised him as “a man of great goodwill.”

    He did this after Qatanani had publicly ranted against Jews and in support of funding Hamas, a U.S. government–designated terror organization, and on the eve of his deportation hearing for hiding an Israeli conviction for membership in Hamas. In addition, Christie designated a top aide, Assistant U.S. Attorney Charles McKenna, to testify as a character witness for Qatanani

    2010: After Derek Fenton burned three pages of a Koran at a 9/11 memorial ceremony, his employer, New Jersey Transit, got Christie’s approval to fire him.

    Christie vocally endorsed Fenton’s termination, even though this meant protecting Islam at the expense of Fenton’s constitutional right to free speech, declaring, “I don’t have any problem with him being fired.” The American Civil Liberties Union successfully represented Fenton to get his job back.

    2010: Christie voted ‘present’ on the issue of opposition to the Ground Zero Victory mosque

    “My principles on this are two-fold. One, that we have to acknowledge, respect and give some measure of deference to the feelings of the family members who lost there loved ones there that day. But it would be wrong to so overreact to that, that we paint Islam with a brush of radical Muslim extremists that just want to kill Americans because we are Americans. But beyond that…I am not going to get into it…”

    2011: Christie appointed an Islamist, Sohail Mohammed, to the New Jersey state superior court.

    Mohammed’s record includes serving as general counsel to the American Muslim Union (which has stated that a “Zionist Commando Orchestrated The 9-11 Terrorist Attacks”), acting as spokesman for Muslim prisoners who went on a hunger strike due to being jailed during Ramadan, defending Palestinian Islamic Jihad operative Sami Al-Arian (whose indictment, Mohammed said, was “nothing but a witch-hunt”), and helping Qatanani’s legal defense. Mohammed is not a lawyer for Islamists but one of them.

    When members of New Jersey’s Senate Judiciary Committee asked Mohammed appropriately tough questions about his enthusiasm for Islam’s archaic law code, the Shari’a, Christie ridiculed the lawmakers: “Shari’a law has nothing to do with this [appointment of Mohammed] at all. It’s crazy. It’s crazy. … So, this Shari’a law business is crap. It’s just crazy. And I’m tired of dealing with the crazies. I mean, you know, it’s just unnecessary to be accusing this guy of things just because of his religious background.” Delighted by this outburst, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) thanked and applauded Christie.

    “Shari’a law has nothing to do with this [appointment of Mohammed] at all. It’s crazy. It’s crazy. … So, this Shari’a law business is crap. It’s just crazy. And I’m tired of dealing with the crazies. I mean, you know, it’s just unnecessary to be accusing this guy of things just because of his religious background.” Delighted by this outburst, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) thanked and applauded Christie.

    Sohail Mohammed, an immigration lawyer who represented detainees caught in the post-Sept. 11 furor, watches the Fox series ‘24’ at his office in Clifton, N.J. “Somewhere, some lunatic out there watching this will do something to an innocent American Muslim because he believes what he saw on TV,” Mohammed said.

    2012:  Revelations that the New York Police Department had conducted surveillance of Islamists in the New Jersey towns of Newark and New Brunswick prompted not gratitude but outrage from Christie, who termed the action arrogant and paranoid while mocking NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly as “all knowing, all seeing.”

    In short, Christie has hugged a terrorist organization member, abridged free-speech rights, scorned concern over Islamization, and opposed law enforcement counterterrorism efforts.Whenever an issue touching on Islam arises, Christie takes the Islamist side against those—the DHS, state senators, the NYPD, even the ACLU—who worry about lawful Islamism eroding the fabric of American life.

    Even notorious liberal Mayor Michael Bloomberg supports NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly's counter terrorism policies

    Two factors render this pattern especially curious: First, soft-on-Islamism policies are common among Democrats but rare among Republicans (Grover Norquist being the major exception). Second, Christie has an ostentatiously pro-Israel stance, as reflected by his speeches and his recent “Jersey to Jerusalem” trip; this makes him unusual, for pro-Israel views typically go hand-in-hand with concern about Shari’a. How does one reconcile the Christie contradiction?

    It could be that, other than fiscally, he is not a conservative but a moderate. It could be ego: the governor is just more brilliant than the rest of us. Or, as several analysts suggest, it could be cynical double pandering: Muslims get what they want most and Zionists what they want most, with each party ignoring what Christie does for the other. Interestingly, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut pursued this double track policy (soft on Islamism, staunch on Israel) and became the Democrats’ VP candidate in 2000.

    Whatever the reason, we conclude that Chris Christie lacks the moral compass, gravitas, and integrity needed to serve as vice-president of the United States.

    Perhaps Christie should be Barack Obama's running mate?

    RELATED STORIES/VIDEOS:

    new-jersey-big-fat-muslim-asskissing-gov-chris-christies-state-says-yes-to-sharia-law

    once-again-nj-gov-chris-christie-sides-with-muslims-against-the-nypds-counter-terrorism-surveillance-operations-in-nj

    new-jersey-muslims-demand-gov-christie-investigate-nypd-surveillance-of-nj-mosques

    first-the-nj-governor-appoints-a-muslim-terrorist-defense-attorney-as-superior-court-judge-now-nj-has-billboards-promoting-islam

    cair-wants-you-to-praise-new-jersey-governor-chris-christie-for-bowing-down-to-islam

    looks-like-nj-governor-chris-christie-is-deeper-in-bed-with-the-islamists-than-we-suspected

    shocker-new-jersey-transit-worker-fired-for-burning-a-quran-at-ground-zero-last-911-is-rehired-thanks-to-the-aclu-yes-the-aclu

    nj-gov-chris-christies-islamist-problem-makes-him-a-darling-of-the-left-wing-media

    FBI Cut All Ties with CAIR. Does Chris Christie have a Hearing Problem? Call His Office to say Cancel CAIR-Sponsored CAMP on 4/02/11 in Plainsboro, NJ

    more-dirt-about-new-jersey-governor-chris-christies-ties-to-terrorist-connected-islamists

    the-problem-with-nj-governor-chris-christie-nominating-a-muslim-for-superior-court-judge-isnt-what-you-think-it-is

    nj-governor-chris-christie-nominates-a-muslim-lawyer-who-represented-islamic-terrorist-suspects-for-superior-court-judgeship

    Posted by at No comments:

    I Believe in Protecting Louisiana’s Right to Keep and Bear Arms

    I Believe in Protecting Louisiana’s Right to Keep and Bear Arms

    Posted by: Sen. Neil Riser on Friday, May 18, 2012, 15:43

    If Louisiana already has a provision in its Constitution protecting the right to keep and bear arms, why is the Louisiana legislature considering an amendment to replace it?

    That’s a good question, and it has a very good answer.

    The amendment, Senate Bill 303, would amend the Constitution to read: “The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental and shall not be infringed. Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.”

    That’s an important change, and I support it, because the current provision in our state Constitution has two major problems.

    First, the Louisiana courts have said that any laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms under the current Constitution are subject only to a “rational basis” test to determine if those laws are constitutional. That is the lowest judicial standard and almost every law taking away firearms rights, except perhaps an outright ban on all guns, would be held constitutional.

    The new amendment fixes that. It declares, using the language of constitutional law, that the right to keep and bear arms is “fundamental” and that any laws restricting that right are subject to “strict scrutiny.” That is the highest level of protection of a right, just like the protection given to our fundamental right of free speech. This amendment will give Louisianans the strongest constitutional guarantee of firearms rights in the country.

    Second, the current Constitution contains an exception which flatly states that laws can be passed “to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.” What’s wrong with that? It is unnecessary, far too broad, and even dangerous to our rights. Most states regulate carrying of concealed weapons without such an exception. Louisiana now has a good, workable system of laws for concealed carry. Concealed carry permits for handguns must be issued to law-abiding citizens.

    Concealed carry is allowed in one’s home and business premises without a permit. But the current constitutional provision allows concealed carry permits to be abolished entirely. Having concealed firearms for self-defense in your home or business could also be outlawed—even if you were under attack. The paramount right of Louisianans to defend their lives and loved ones should not be jeopardized by an “exception” that invites abuse.

    The new, stronger amendment would not allow felons or the mentally ill to obtain firearms. Felons and other dangerous people are already forbidden to possess firearms under federal law. The proposed amendment would not allow people to carry firearms into public or private schools or other sensitive places. Those kinds of restrictions have been upheld by the courts, and they would continue to be upheld under the new amendment.

    So why is the amendment necessary at this moment? Recent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court have recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court recognized that right by only a 5-4 majority vote. That balance could tip the other way by a single new appointment to the Court. If Second Amendment protections vanish or are cut back, we must rely on our own state Constitution to protect our rights. But our current constitution, because of those “rational basis” interpretations by judges, affords almost no protection to the right to keep and bear arms.

    So we need to strengthen it now. We need to remove that excessively broad loophole relating to concealed carry. We need to let the judges know that our Constitution, after this amendment, will say unmistakably what we have always known it must mean: that the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental, and cannot be taken away in the future by the whim of a transient majority of legislators or judges.

    The good people of Louisiana have a long tradition of responsible firearms use for lawful defense of self, family, and home, and for hunting and sport shooting. When this amendment comes before the voters in the fall, it will give us a unique opportunity to pass on those proud traditions, strong and undiminished, to future generations.

    Related articles, courtesy of Zemanta:
    Posted by at No comments:
    Labels:

    Friday, May 18, 2012

    53,000 Dead Voters Found in Florida

    53,000 Dead Voters Found in Florida

    May 16, 2012 - 5:03 pm - by J. Christian Adams

    I have learned that Florida election officials are set to announce that the secretary of state has discovered and purged up to 53,000 dead voters from the voter rolls in Florida.

    How could 53,000 dead voters have sat on the polls for so long?  Simple. Because Florida hadn’t been using the best available data revealing which voters have died.  Florida is now using the nationwide Social Security Death Index for determining which voters should be purged because they have died.

    Here is the bad news.  Most states aren’t using the same database that Florida is.  In fact, I have heard reports that some election officials won’t even remove voters even when they are presented with a death certificate.  That means that voter rolls across the nation still are filled with dead voters, even if Florida is leading the way in detecting and removing them.  [emphasis mine]

    But surely people aren’t voting in the names of dead voters, the voter fraud deniers argue.  Wrong.

    Keaton

    Consider the case of Lafayette Keaton.  Keaton not only voted for a dead person in Oregon, he voted for his dead son.  Making Keaton’s fraud easier was Oregon’s vote by mail scheme, which has opened up gaping holes in the integrity of elections.  The incident in Oregon just scratches the surface of the problem.  Massachusetts and Mississippi are but two other examples of the dead rising on election day.

    Florida should be applauded for taking the problem seriously, even if Eric Holder’s Justice Department and many state election officials don’t.

    Related: League of Women Voters Aren’t Nonpartisan.

    Also Related: From July 2010, Lawlessness at the DOJ: Voting Section Told Not To Enforce Purging the Dead or Ineligible from Voting Rolls

    Related articles, courtesy of Zemanta:
    Posted by at No comments:
    Labels:
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)