I can remember believing that Florida was stolen. How different we might have been, had Al Gore been elected. Alas, he was not.
Many of us, including no doubt Reverend Sharpton, can remember voter suppression. It was everywhere, especially down South. Voter intimidation was present. As were votes from the dead in Chicago.
Jimmy Carter has been appalled at the way we vote in the United States. An official observer in other countries, Carter has lamented that many less developed countries have a better system.
But as for Democrats and their new call to arms, we have concrete evidence that they not only seek to suppress votes, but support those who do.
The best example falls squarely within the Obama administration, and no doubt Obama personally. Since I saw this myself on video, and read about it extensively, it is clear that the acts of the New Black Panthers who were prosecuted for voter intimidation and certain acts against Hillary Clinton in the primaries were voter suppression, pure and simple. I am also convinced that requiring an ID is not. I believe that this fight is purely about the desire to get improper voting.
Until today, we have little evidence of this happening, although the ways in which Iowa, Missouri and Indiana were won in 2008 certainly smacked of voter manipulation if not outright fraud. After all, there are many people in Illinois who wanted and still want Obama to succeed. But today, we have videotape. By someone with Obama's campaign. Seeking to rig the vote in Florida.
But first a little about voter fraud and intimidation.
There are those in the Department of Justice who believe that there is no right for a white or Hispanic to claim their votes are being suppressed under the voting rights acts. Although Wikipedia is often discounted for some reason, most of what I read comports to the facts, and many articles now require proper citation if the article needs it. Here is what is said about this case, brought under the Bush Administration.
Since the voting rights act was enacted in 1965, only a handful of cases under the act have been pursued by the Justice Department. According to AAG Perez, the Department has records of only three prior cases. One case that the department filed during the Bush administration, United States v. Brown, was one of the first voting rights cases which involved a white plaintiff and a black defendant. The case precipitated deep divisions within the Justice Department. Some employees felt that the voting rights act was passed because historically, it was minorities who had been disenfranchised and that the department should therefore focus on cases filed by minorities, while others felt that it was intended to protect all voters in a race-neutral manner. Employees who worked the Brown case have described being harassed by colleagues due to the widespread belief that civil rights laws should not be used to protect white voters. One Justice Department official stated that "The Voting Rights Act was passed because people like Bull Connor were hitting people like John Lewis, not the other way around."
When Barack Obama took over the presidency, he was confronted with a voting rights act violation against whites unlike any before. Most such actions are initiated on claims of the victims or blatant acts seen by some witness or other.
But this one was not. It was based on one or more videos. Men, wearing the black uniform of the New Black Panthers, stood inside 100 feet of the voting place in Philadelphia with at least one holding a club and all looking at voters in a threatening manner. In fact, they were within a few feet of the entry to the polling place.
Philadelphia is largely white. While I have no information so far about the percentage in the precinct in which they were present, let's suppose that it was about the same as the more than 80% white to less than 12% black.
So the key question was, will the Department of Justice prosecute anyone for voter intimidation, including whites and Hispanics. Leaving totally aside the possibility of any black who might have been inclined to vote.
According to one participant, this was not likely in a milieu where complaints by whites and Hispanics were being largely ignored.
To Christopher Coates, the former head of the Department of Justice's voting rights section, the comment was more than just an attempt at irony – it was evidence that something was going wrong in the department.
On Friday, Mr. Coates testified before the US Civil Rights Commission, a bipartisan oversight group, alleging that under President Obama, the dismissive attitude of that civil rights staff attorney toward white claims of disenfranchisement at the hands of blacks has essentially become Justice Department policy. He said he had seen evidence that Obama appointees in the Department of Justice had created a "hostile atmosphere" toward attorneys pushing to prosecute blacks for voting-rights violations – a charge the Justice Department denies.
You can dismiss Coates all you want. But imagine the fact that a longtime civil servant whose devotion to civil rights is unquestionable was so compelled to say something when doing so meant much of his career was over, perhaps at least until another Republican is elected. But Coates was a former ACLU lawyer and also in charge of the Voting Rights section of DOJ. The following provides additional detail from his Wikipedia entry.
Christopher Coates is a U.S. Justice Department official and former ACLU lawyer. He stepped down as Voting Section chief in December 2009 and transferred to the U.S. Attorney's office in South Carolina. In January 2010 Coates said, "America is increasingly a multiracial, multiethnic, and multicultural society. For such a diverse group of people to be able to live and function together in a democratic society, there have to be certain common standards that we are bound by and that protect us all. ... For the Department of Justice to enforce the Voting Rights Act only to protect members of certain minority groups breaches the fundamental guarantee of equal protection. ..." J. Christian Adams has said that Coates, who he worked with on a voter intimidation case involving the New Black Panther Party, was transferred after a confrontation with acting head of the Civil Rights Division Steve Rosenbaum. Adams claims that officials in Barack Obama's administration oppose race-neutral enforcement of the law. In December 2009 the United States Civil Rights Commission issued a subpoena for Coates' testimony on the matter; however, the Department of Justice ordered him not to comply. On 24 September 2010, Coates defied the DOJ and testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, citing the Whistleblower Protection Act. Coates largely supported Adams' earlier testimony, describing "the atmosphere that existed and continues to exist in the CRD and in the Voting Section against the fair enforcement of certain Federal voting laws", and to statements by several VRS staff attorneys and executives showing hostility towards enforcing voting laws on a race-neutral basis. For example, "a Voting Section career attorney informed me that he was opposed to bringing voting rights cases against African American defendants, such as in the Ike Brown case, until we reached the day when the socio-economic status of blacks in Mississippi was the same as the socio-economic status of whites living there."
Note too that Hispanic, Indian and Asian intimidation is also not mentioned. Only protection of African-Americans.
In many ways, it is difficult to fault this position. After all, we did have a horrible time in the South. But such problems are largely over. In fact, we have had voter intimidation of whites by blacks in the South, Louisiana has a minority governor, and Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia and Maryland all went for Obama.
Leaving aside his right to tell the DOJ what to do and who to prosecute, as he has now done with his Executive Order relative to the immigration laws, Obama's main purpose behind his party's strong resistance to any law that deals with voter IDs is to perpetuate the notion that African-Americans and now Hispanics will not be fairly treated at the voting booths. A study was even done, no doubt by Democrats, which alleged to prove that, despite its many assumptions, voter ID laws would most adversely affect blacks and Hispanics.
But, unlike other countries and merely based on "studies" that fail the basic litmus test of being scientific even by their own admission and which depend on the lack of evidence as proof of the diabolical plans of Republicans to suppress minority votes, minorities continue to believe that their votes and voters will be suppressed if they are required to show an ID.
Although there was pitiful little evidence of fraud in national elections, it used to be very commonplace. Why not today? Now, it is apparent that it is perhaps far more prevalent than many of us believed, reaching into the very heart of the Obama campaign.
Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller today did this for us. A former MSNBC correspondent fired by them for reasons that are irrelevant but could have been his politics. Now, as before, finding out things that are worth considering in this election year.
In a September 2012 article, the Daily Caller had noted little fraud has been found. This was a balanced article as far as it went.
But now, we have taped evidence of fraud stemming from an Obama campaign worker.
Videographer James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas caught an official for President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign helping who she thought was an Obama supporter set herself up to vote more than once in November. Stephanie Caballero is the regional field director for Obama’s Organizing For America in Houston, Texas. Federal Election Commission documents show, according to Project Veritas, that Caballero is a “salaried employee of the DNC [Democratic National Committee].” Caballero is caught on camera helping the young woman try to vote in Florida and Texas in the upcoming election.
A lot more can be said here. But whatever efforts are made by Obama to suppress votes as he has with respect to the military, or to allow others to "vote once and vote often," the creed in Chicago, we can be certain of one thing.
This videotape and its fall out will be minimized as much as possible by almost everyone in the MSM and every Democrat available. While the first article got traction, will this one?
So far, no one has picked this up. Will they ever?