About Me

Name: R. D. Cook
Location: Lone Pine, CA
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

Voter Fraud

 

A SIMPLE SOLUTION TO VOTER FRAUD

 

 

Recent examples of fraud in registering voters and actual fraud during the voting process has severely eroded the confidence of the American voter in our electoral process.

It seems to me that some foolproof system needs to be put in place that will guarantee the following:

1.      Only those eligible to vote in any election are able to do so

2.      A person is only able to vote once in any given election

3.      All persons eligible to vote in an election are able to do so

4.      All campaign contributions are traceable and “upfront” confirmation should be mandatory (see attached FEC letter)

5.      A system must be created that can verify and back check to insure 1, 2, 3 and 4

are scrupulously followed.

As to number one above; this could be guaranteed with minimal effort. Every citizen of the United States has been issued a social security number by the time they reach voting age. That number is assigned to a specific name. When a person registers to vote they would supply their name and social security number. The registration form would then be checked against the Social Security Administration (SSA) records to determine if it was legitimate. False, duplicate, or a number not assigned to the correct individual would be rejected and investigated to determine if it was an attempt at fraud or just a clerical mistake. Checking registrations in this way would make sure persons were not registered in multiple precincts for local elections or multiple states in national elections. Optical scanners could accomplish this task easily when linked to the SSA data base.

Current laws only requiring copies of utility bills, bank statements or paycheck stubs are an invitation to fraud. (All are easy to counterfeit especially when only copies are required.) The only sure way to guarantee accuracy is to use a SSN and the voters name for registration and then have laws mandating that the “registration” is cross checked using SSNs.

As to number two above; only those individuals whose “registration” had been verified could vote. This has become a huge problem since the advent of same day registration/voting coupled with extended or early voting. As it stands now in national elections a person could register and vote early in one state, do the same in other states and vote numerous times in a national election. Confirmed registration to vote using SS numbers would eliminate this problem. There would not be any tie to a SS number and the actual voting record of any individual. The only link would be during the registration process. The problem is aptly demonstrated when some states like Wisconsin and Ohio have refused to cross check voter registrations. Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner  argued that federal rules only require the state to have a system in place for double-checking registrations but do not require her to make the checks. (This is in regard to 200,000 questionable voter registrations) To further demonstrate the need for “registration’ accountability; a law suit had to be filed in Wisconsin to try and force municipal clerks to verify voter registrations. How can the American public have confidence in the electoral process in this atmosphere of perceived or actual voter registration fraud?

As to number three above; every citizen of the United States who is eligible to vote already has a SS number. No additional voter identification for registration would be needed.  

The old rules for registering to vote were grounded in very sound principles. Registering to vote some legislated number of days before an election gave election officials time to weed out fraudulent attempts to register illegally. The old system of only having a single day to vote severely decreased the ability to vote numerous times in different locations. These rules should be reinstated for national elections.

As to # 4 above; American confidence in the election finance regulations has all but evaporated. At the present time there is no sure way to guarantee that contributions are legal or meet the contribution limits. This situation must be changed. (See the accompanying FEC letter)

Voting is a right in the United States and no person should be denied the right to vote. Voting also carries some very serious responsibilities. Only elections that are fair and honest can guarantee our confidence in our elected officials and the electoral process. Any person who is in a position of power in this country who does not do everything possible to insure honest elections has an agenda contrary to the basic form of our government. (OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE.) Whenever I hear of someone attempting to stop efforts to make our election process more foolproof; I can only come to one conclusion. These people want confusion and are probably in favor of voter fraud that helps them or others to gain or retain elected positions.

Our electoral process is under serious attack. Groups like ACORN who register one individual numerous times, register people at false addresses, register numerous people at the same address or register people not eligible to vote are attempting to defraud the electoral process and create confusion to further their agendas. Any instance where the number of ballots cast is greater than the number of registered voters clearly shows that voter fraud is not a figment of anyone’s imagination. The often repeated liberal slogan of “vote early-vote often” can now be expanded to “vote early-vote often in as many precincts and states as possible”

During national elections states must be required by law to verify all voter “registrations” using names and SS numbers.

 

Groups like Acorn should only be allowed to hand out blank registration forms. If they wished they could also hand out stamped addressed envelopes for the registrar of voters in that area. They should never be allowed to possess completed, partially completed or signed forms. Individuals receiving blank forms from voter registration groups could then complete the form and mail it to their registrar of voters. The United States has a very secure and extensive postal system that would be much better for insuring accurate voter registration when compared to groups like ACORN who are obviously heavily involved in voter registration fraud. It is very possible that ACORN, an organization closely aligned to the Democratic Party, might even discard registration cards of voters registering as Republicans. All federal monies should be denied this group or any other group that is found to be participating in voter registration fraud.

Individuals contacted by voter registration organizations should be informed that only by filling out the form and mailing it themselves, will they guarantee the honesty of the electoral process and make sure they are registered properly. Every voter registration card handed out should be accompanied by written instructions directing voters to only use the mail or online registration and not give completed registration forms to anyone. Individuals should be warned to be suspicious of anyone who offers to fill out and mail voter registration forms for them. If a person is unable to fill out the form due to some disability; they should get help from someone they trust and not rely on a stranger who might have an agenda. If any hint of fraud occurs they should report it immediately to election officials. Following these procedures would eliminate much of the voter fraud being carried out by these groups. Online registration could also be checked by linking to the SSA data base and would be much faster.

Punishment for voter or voter registration fraud or voting fraud should be severe. It should be even more severe if election officials themselves are involved in any type of fraud. The election process in our country should be sacred. It is the basis for our whole structure of government and all attempts to defraud the process can not be tolerated in any way.

Congress and many of our elected officials have the lowest approval rating in the history of our country. If confidence in our electoral process also fails we will begin a downward spiral that will lead to a total lack of confidence in our government and further promote the divisions that exist in our country today.

In addition to the above there should be a national law that candidates seeking national office provide all ‘original” and “best” documentation that absolutely proves they meet the qualifications for that office. If any elected official is to have the confidence of the nation there should be absolutely no question of his or her qualifications to serve in that office.

Confidence in our government and leaders is of paramount importance at this time of economic and social upheaval in our country and the world. This is not a Democratic or Republican problem. It is a concern for all Americans. Complete transparency is the only way to promote confidence and bring this country together; a goal often stated by many of our elected officials.

The United States as leader of the free world should be instrumental in promoting completely fair elections and promote transparency in our government. Failure to do so will lead to further erosion in the confidence of our leaders, our government and the electoral process. How can we hold ourselves up as the “shining beacon on the hill” when multiple lawsuits throughout our nation concerning our elections cause us to be the laughing stock of the international community and erode the very confidence of the American people in their own government and electoral process?

R.D. Cook, author of “A Primer for Conservative Activism” 

Federal Election Commission, 999 E Street, NW, Washington, DC 20463 (800) 424-9530 In Washington (202) 694-1000

Dear Sirs,                                                                              11-24-2008

I have some very serious concerns about the just completed national election. It seems the campaign of President elect Obama received a very large number of campaign contributions via prepaid credit cards. I find this very disturbing. 

Anyone, including foreign nationals who are not eligible to contribute funds to our elections could circumvent our laws using these cards. A person or group could purchase 500 hundred of these cards; say for $200 each and then use them to illegally funnel $100,000 into a campaign. People who have already contributed the maximum possible could also use them to contribute far more than is legal.

I believe these cards or any other untraceable contributions should be outlawed as a means to contribute to any campaign. The only reason to use them that I can see is to circumvent our election laws limiting or tracing campaign contributions. I feel that any contribution in any amount needs to be traceable if we are to retain any confidence in our election process.

Any contributions a candidate might receive from these types of contributions, since they are not traceable and could not be returned, should be confiscated and given to the FEC to help with administrative costs in enforcing our election laws.

It is a sad and disturbing fact that many Americans have a very low opinion of our government at this time. If our elections continue to be compromised due to voter registration and voter fraud or massive illegal campaign contributions; the confidence of the American people in our government will erode even further.

I have spoken to several people who are active in community affairs and valuable members of my community who have said they will no longer even vote in elections. They feel that our elections are no longer valid and that their votes will no longer matter when compared to the massive voter fraud that they feel is rampant in our society. When some recent elections come down to a candidate winning by a few hundred votes; any fraud can be the deciding factor. Contributions used to fund massive television and radio commercials, if they are illegal, obviously can sway an election when it is very close.

The present regulations that allow “back end” confirmation of contributions should be eliminated. The mere fact that it is more CONVENIENT for a campaign to use “back end” confirmation of internet contributions and prepaid credit cards can no longer be allowed. The very validity of our elections is being compromised.

R. D. Cook, author of “A Primer for Conservative Activism”

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Constitutional Crisis

 

              A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS WITH MILLIONS OF LAWSUITS?

Who would actually have standing to bring suit to determine if President Elect Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States of America.

(Comment) So far several suits have been dismissed not on merit but because the court ruled the person or persons did not have standing to bring the suit. They could not show they were damaged by his election.

 If after Obama was sworn in and signed laws passed by congress; would a person who violated these laws have standing by claiming the laws were unconstitutional because they were signed by a president who had never proved he was a natural born citizen?

Would the same apply to treaties, executive orders or any document requiring the signature of the President?

I can imagine courts all over the USA swamped with lawsuits claiming any law signed by a president who was not legally entitled to be president was unconstitutional.

You would think the Electoral College, The Democratic Party and the American people would demand proof to prevent a meltdown in our courts and stop a very serious constitutional crisis.

It would be extremely embarrassing to the Democratic Party at this late stage to admit they had put forth a candidate who did not meet the most basic test to become president. If however they continue to support their President Elect and it later comes to light that they knew he was not qualified; it will destroy all credibility the Democratic Party might have. (WHO KNEW WHAT AND WHEN DID THEY KNOW IT)

Every elected position I am aware of requires an oath of office that normally includes the phrase: ‘I swear or affirm I will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States to the best of my ability” If any elected officials were aware Obama was not a natural born citizen and kept that fact from coming to light they should be removed from office and punished to the limit of the law.

R.D. Cook, author of “A Primer for Conservative Activism”

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Second Amendment

IGNORANCE, STUPIDITY OR DISHONESTY by the four dissenting Supreme Court Justices on the Second Amendment ruling

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In The recent five to four Supreme Court ruling affirming the individual right of Americans to keep and bear arms, four of the most liberal Supreme Court Justices denied that the American people have that right.

The five justices who affirmed that right are:

Chief Justice John G Roberts Jr.
Justice Antonin Scalia
Justice Samuel E, Alito Jr.
Justice Clarence Thomas
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy

The four dissenting Justices are:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Justice David H. Souter
Justice John Paul Stevens
Justice Steven G. Breyer

In supporting that individual right Justice Scalia stated, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is not limited to state militias, as some historians have argued. Rather, it protects "the inherent right of self-defense," The majority also took into account the meanings of “to keep” and “bear” as they were understood at the time the Second Amendment was written. They were correct in doing so. If the original intent of the writers of The Constitution is ignored then why have a constitution at all? Justices take an oath to “preserve, protect and defend The Constitution”. Nowhere in the oath does it say justices have the right or duty to change the meaning of The Constitution by judicial fiat to promote individual ideologies.

This decision closely follows the original intent of the Founding Fathers in writing of the Second Amendment and enforces the absolute need and right of American citizens to defend themselves. In support of that argument here are a few enlightening statistics;

1. In most large metropolitan areas the response time for the police to arrive at the scene of an emergency call (911) ranges from six to over eleven minutes.
2. In some large cities the 911 system is so overloaded that even to actually be connected to an operator entails waits of ten minutes or more during peak hours. Then you need to add the above response times.
3. In rural areas where long distances are involved, response times can be very extended.
4. Where o where did I put that trigger lock key? Damn which key fits my .45?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following are some quotes from our Founding Fathers in regard to the people’s right to keep and bear arms:

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."Thomas Paine
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788
"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry
"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8
To me it is very obvious that the above dissenting justices are either completely ignorant of the intent of our Founding Fathers in writing the Second Amendment or they are dishonestly ignoring history to advance their own socialistic agendas. If the later is the case then they have violated their oath to preserve, protect and defend The Constitution of The United States.

In every case where “The People” is mentioned in the Constitution it refers to individual rights. Attempts to say that the right to keep and bear arms is limited to state controlled militias is in direct opposition of the intended meaning of the Second Amendment. If a militia is controlled by the state, it has the power to be an arm of the state to oppress the people. The above statements by our Founding Fathers show that this is what they were very concerned about and why the right to keep and bear arms was meant for the individual.
In all fairness I should attempt to give the arguments put forth by those with opposing views.

The below excerpt from The Los Angeles Times gives you the philosophy of Justice Stevens who apparently believes we don’t even have the right to have arms for hunting or self defense. Is he Ignorant, stupid or just dishonest in ignoring all the above beliefs by our Founding Fathers?
.
By David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
June 27, 2008 

 But in his 46-page dissent, Stevens accused Scalia of misreading the words of the 2nd Amendment and spinning its history to ignore     its focus on organized militias.

The 2nd Amendment, ratified more than 200 years ago, says that "a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

It was adopted, Stevens said, to protect the right of the people to maintain well-regulated state militias. That does not involve a right to "use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense," he wrote.

The following is where the liberal side of the gun control issue at least makes an honest statement of their ultimate goal:
"Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
Sara Brady
Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum
The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.

It seems to me that the four Supreme Court justices and especially Justice Stevens who support the dissenting opinion above agree with Mrs. Sara Brady.

For those who fail to realize how important a president is to the makeup of the Supreme Court remember this; all of the justices affirming the individual right to keep and bear arms were nominated by Republican presidents; Scalia and Kennedy by Regan, Alito, Thomas and Roberts by Bush. Can you guess what stripe of liberal justices we would have had if Gore or Kerry had been elected?

The next two justices to probably retire will be Justice John Paul Stevens (88) and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (75) who are probably two of the most liberal justices on the Supreme Court at this time. We need our next president to be someone who will insist on nominees who will preserve, protect and defend our constitution by applying traditional or original interpretation of our constitution. Can that happen with President Elect Obama?

R.D. Cook, author of: “A Primer for Conservative Activism”
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »