Free Markets, Free People

There is absolutely no problem with voter fraud, say the Democrats … repeatedly

However, as with most such utterances by that crew, they’re simply wrong:

The North Carolina State Board of Elections has found thousands of instances of voter fraud in the state, thanks to a 28-state crosscheck of voter rolls. Initial findings suggest widespread election fraud.

765 voters with an exact match of first and last name, DOB and last four digits of SSN were registered in N.C. and another state and voted in N.C. and the other state in the 2012 general election.
35,750 voters with the same first and last name and DOB were registered in N.C. and another state and voted in both states in the 2012 general election.

155,692 voters with the same first and last name, DOB and last four digits of SSN were registered in N.C. and another state – and the latest date of registration or voter activity did not take place within N.C.

The second point is key, as double voting is election fraud under state and federal statutes. Punishment for double voting in federal elections can include jail time.

No one said the fraudulent voters were smart (seriously, same DOB, SSAN and name if you’re going to commit fraud? Brilliant!), but what they did was certainly election fraud. And this is one state.

The findings, while large, leave open the question of just how widespread double voting might be since 22 states did not participate in the Interstate Crosscheck.

But remember – voter fraud is just not a problem. The integrity of our voting system, per the Dems, is air tight. And no, the dead don’t vote:

In addition to the above, the crosscheck found that more than 13,000 deceased voters remain on North Carolina’s rolls, and that 81 of them showed voter activity in their records after death.

Well, not many of them.

~McQ

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

37 Responses to There is absolutely no problem with voter fraud, say the Democrats … repeatedly

  • Voters of all persuasions strongly support vote integrity laws.  Everywhere.  Because it just makes common sense.

  • Let’s not forget the tamper proof documentation we’re all going to have to prove we can legally work in the US…..
     
    Which won’t be used to verify your right to vote in the US…..
     
    Because that would be racist.   Besides, there’s no problem (as long as Democrats are getting properly elected).

  • I’m from the People’s Republic of Illinois where vote fraud is de rigeur.  Had a patient who just out-of-the-blue started bragging how he helped Daley (senior) steal the 1962 presidential election.  “We grabbed a truck and went around to all the union halls, picked the guys up and took ‘em to the polls.  When we heard it might be close, we went back and got the same guys and drove ‘em around again.”  To the point:  he was proud of his accomplishment, and it was expected.  North Carolina – you go nuttin’ on us…

  • I understand that in the racial paradise of South Africa, everybody is required to have a photo ID with barcode to vote on election day (no absentee voting allowed).
    You would have to call Nelson Mandela a racist to say that photo ID is racist.

  • Which States participated (or not)?
    With out clean voter rolls, there is no trust.

  • I’m glad NC is checking on this.  I hope they follow up and prosecute those people.  AL and FL definitely need to purge the dead and the illegals off their voter lists and also food stamps.

  • I give up. The GOP needs to simply engage in voter fraud on a larger and better scale than current.
     
    The rules died long ago, this is just kabuki.

    • Dude!  Don’t insult kabuki.  It has LOTS of rules!

    • They will be complicit in voter fraud when they help push “immigration non-reform normalization” into law.

  • “Election fraud” is redundant.
    Even when you follow all the rules and only cast one vote, you’re presuming to take away authority from me and give it to a “representative”, regardless of the fact that I never relinquished my authority.  It is my authority to give, and mine alone.
    References to “social contract” need not apply.

    • How ’bout “silly absolutist”?  That sure applies.

      • “Stuck on stupid” applies to that mantra of yours.
        See: “‘Extremism,’ or The Art of Smearing,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, 1966.
        Your use of the term “absolutism” or “absolutist” is essentially as vapid as the use of “extremism” or “extremist”.
        It’s an anti-concept, a non-definition.  It means nothing except a feeling you have, to pooh-pooh something without addressing the content, simply because it makes you feel like it’s too much…something. You can’t put your finger on exactly what, but it’s something which is “too much”.

        FACTS:
        1. My neighbor does work, for which he earns value (salary, benefits, etc.).
        2. If I were to take away his money, car, TV, or anything else he worked to earn, I would be a thief.
        3. If I threatened to kill him if he resisted, I would be committing aggravated robbery.
        4. If I took him at gunpoint and locked him in a cage because he resisted me, I would be committing kidnap and assault.
        5. All of this together probably makes me an extortionist.
        6. I do not have the moral authority to do any of these things, not even if I justify it by claiming that I “need” the money for something I decide is more important than his use, not even if I give the property I steal to charity. (Actually, what really happens is that I give a pittance to the impoverished while the bulk goes to friends of mine and to myself so we can live lavish lifestyles and more easily accomplish more extortion and racketeering.)
        7. Lacking the moral authority to treat my neighbor as such, I cannot grant such authority to you, by proxy.  Were I to tell you that you have my blessing to rob, assault, kidnap, extort my neighbor, you could not claim my blessing as an excuse for your culpability.
        8. If I and ten of my fellow thugs got together and decided that we would give you authority to do so, that doesn’t change your culpability.
        So, given that 1-8 are unassailable facts, explain how 100,000,000 people can get together and grant such authority. Provide an actual argument, not an appeal to tradition/popularity/force/authority. No collectivist fallacies (e.g., the “social contract”). No anti-concepts like “absolutism” or “extremism”.
        Explain how 1 or 10 or 500 lack moral authority, but somewhere between there and 100,000,000, that threshold is crossed, at which point authority magically appears.
        If anyone is “silly”, it’s those who believe in some magical source of authority at some magical numerical value, disregarding the individual’s own values.

        • Silly absolutist…
          2 through 5 of your items are CRIMES.  CRIMES are defined by an “authority”, which has evolved in our society to be a “legislature”.  That is a representative body of people elected to pass laws, and given the power to so do.  “Crimes” are only that because a majority of people see them as such.  In another place, they are just utilitarian acts.
          Then you switch…inexplicably…to some “moral ground” argument.  Who says what’s moral?  Where did YOU get the authority to decide that?  Where did YOUR morals come from?
          You want to live on an island, while staying in a society with…yes…a social contract.  That contract was in place before you, and will be in place in some form after you.  You either deal honestly with that, you leave, or you are simply a coward who likes blowing gas.
          A fair election is not any kind of contradiction.  Your position is the fraud.
           

          • 2 through 5 of your items are CRIMES.  CRIMES are defined by an ‘authority’, which has evolved in our society to be a ‘legislature’.

            They are morally wrong. That various rulers have recognized these facets of reality and threatened punishment for such does not make them social constructs.
            If you and I lived on an island and you worked for days to build a boat and fishing gear, then came back with a pile of fish, it would be wrong for me to take them when your back was turned. I didn’t do the work. I didn’t spend part of my life devoted to the task of procuring sustenance for survival.
            If, on the other hand, we go with your idea that these are CRIMES because of a legislature, then it would be a CRIME for me to assist a fleeing slave in 1820. That is is fundamentally wrong and evil to own human beings, which is all that matters to me. Why do you need an Emancipation Proclamation and a Thirteenth Amendment to convince you they are wrong and evil? Would you engage in rape if the legislature hadn’t quite gotten around to passing such laws? Or would you be a better man than that?

            Then you switch…inexplicably…to some “moral ground” argument.

            I did no such thing.  It was always about ethics. That you interpreted my use of “crime” to be limited only to legislative acts is your narrow-mindedness.
            It’s a crime, a moral wrong, for me to take your fish on the island. No constitution, vote, or grand poobah need say so.

            Who says what’s moral?  Where did YOU get the authority to decide that?  Where did YOUR morals come from?

            Utilitarianism, moral ambiguity? You’ve been wallowing in post-modernism I see.
            Reality is the source of morality. The fact that you spent part of your life to catch the fish means that my stealing them is depriving you of that portion of your life. Had you known I would steal them, you could have just grazed for edible plants and eaten them on the spot. Instead, my theft could easily mean that not only do you lose that part of your life during which you worked, but you could also starve to death.  That is the way things happen in the real world.
            So, you can sit in your ivory tower and sneer about who decides morality and repeat the tired old textbook definitions that people like Erb tell their students, but when you’re face-to-face with an action which means great deprivation, possibly harm or death, then all the smarmy hand-waving about collective authority doesn’t mean squat.
            And, when you’re honest and just doing your thing to survive and a group of uncivilized louts mob you, stealing from you, mauling you, even killing you, then your loss, pain, and death serve as testament to the evil of subjecting moral decision making to the whims of a mob.

            You ask about my “authority” to decide this, but that’s like asking you, “Who made you king to declare that the force of gravity, under Newtonian conditions, is proportional to m1*m2/r**2?” You didn’t decide that. It’s just a fact of nature (under typical conditions).

            I didn’t decide on morality. I recognized how it works. And, I’m not swayed by popularity to reject a moral principle because most people think something stupid.

            For the religious, the answer is that morals come from god.  OK.  For me, I agree with Rand (IIRC) who said that the rights of human beings derive from our nature as natural beings. Self-ownership is the basis and at the root of every collectivist or thug is the denial of self-ownership. Democracy is one example. Self-ownership confirms all the facts I enumerated above. To refute my facts, you must reject self-ownership.

            You and Erb have a pow-wow and figure that one out.

            You want to live on an island….

            Ubiquitous straw man. I have no interest in dealing with scarcity of resources, storms, sand flies, and the lot.

            That contract was in place before you….

            Then I am not bound by it. See Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority.  (Yeah, I know, it’s too much to ask you to read it, since you clearly skipped Rand’s explication on the anti-concept of “extremism”, which destroys your use of the anti-concept “absolutism”.)

            You either deal honestly with that, you leave, or you are simply a coward who likes blowing gas.

            I do deal honestly. I denounce it for the lie it is. You’re the one repeating the falsehood.
            I refuse to leave. My ancestors were likely here before yours and I’ll be damned if I’ll let a pissant like you try to bully me into leaving what used to be “The Land of the Free”, and which is the only place with the chance of being that again.

            You want to call me a coward from behind a keyboard?  I’ll tell you what: you think I need to leave, then you show up to move me. Don’t send anyone in uniforms. Don’t hire any lackeys or assistance. Do it yourself. If my dog doesn’t make you run away pissing your pants, I’ll demonstrate to you exactly how wrong you are.

            A fair election is not any kind of contradiction.

            Do you disagree with 1-8 above (disregarding any of your pointless quibbling over the involvement of legislatures or monarchs signing decrees)? If so, explain why.

            If you do not disagree, then explain how many people it takes to get together to give a “representative” the authority to do what you, as an individual, do not have and never will have.  100,000?  683,048?
            Justify your number. Show your work.

          • Your “organic morality” nonsense has, at least, the character of being novel.
            “You declare, therefore it is.”  How convenient.  How dishonest!
            Next, you try, “My people were here before your people”, an equally bankrupt fallacy.  It doesn’t matter a whit if you got here yesterday or were born here.  IF you live here, you DO live in a nation with a representative republic.  Which, BTW, was NEVER the “Land Of the Free” as you loopily imagine it.  You DO live in a “social contract” here, or you leave.  You can try to change it while living here, but you can’t deny it exists (well…without a lot of people pointing at you and laughing).  And it is a peculiar brand of moral, intellectual cowardice that condemns an entire people (including our fore-bearers) and their system of government, while remaining immersed in it and its benefits.  Show your morality, and act according to your “thinking”.
            Go find your island where conduct is moral because…reality.  Build a society where people just do right because it is manifestly what Elliot says it is.  Send us back a postcard, because I would love to study that.

          • Your ‘organic morality’ nonsense has, at least, the character of being novel.

            You’re an uneducated lout.  I’ve given you specific references (Rand, Spooner). There’s also Locke, Thoreau, Garrison, Rothbard, Mises.
            None of the things I have explained to you are in any way new. Most are a product of The Enlightenment, and the more recent were honed long before either of us were born.
            Your arguments are as fallacious as Erb’s, that morality is a social construct.  All you’ve done is repeat what I already refuted and refused to answer any of the questions posed to you.
            Go read Rand’s essay on “extremism”. Go read Spooner’s thorough take down of the notion that one can be born into a contract.
            Again, you tell me I must leave–not because I arrived at a party in which everyone else had already settled on rules, but because a handful of elites came up with rules ex post facto and imposed them on everyone else, including the black slaves and the American Indians who never got a vote on the land their ancestors inhabited long before Columbus.
            Show up at my house and make me leave. Do it yourself. I’ll demonstrate to you that I’m no coward and that I’ll not put up with your “love it or leave it” fascism.  Or, don’t, and show that you’re actually the coward, since you want others to do your dirty work.

          • “Go read Spooner’s thorough take down of the notion that one can be born into a contract.”
            I understand contract WAY better than do, my morally bankrupt brother.
            I never said you had to abide by a contract not of your making.  I said you are IN a country with an existing social contract, and YOU have to have the integrity to put your feet where your mouth is.  This IS a representative republic.  Every day you stay here, you ratify that contract.
            You don’t have that kind of integrity.  You confuse what I said with, “I’m a comin’ a’getcha.”  Or sending someone to gethcha.  I am not.  You…if you had any integrity…would exfil.  You don’t…and you won’t.  You’re just a bitcher.  A simple moral coward with a lot of absolutist bullshit.
            I never said “morality is a social construct”.  That is more consistent with your BS.  I have a very defined moral and ethical code, and I know I didn’t just gin it up, or observe it out of “reality”.  It didn’t come from me.  It also didn’t come from any human agency I can identify in history.  But it damn sure did not come from Ayn Rand (who I admire for when she was right, while also knowing her for the VERY flawed person she was and her philosophy being flawed for when it was).
            You’ve lied about me several times here, so I know you were hit in the meat.
            Lemme know when that island or wherever absolutist nirvana is set up.  I REALLY want to record how that works out.

          • Oh, and that “self ownership” thingy…
            We agree on the basics.  Where we DISAGREE is on the FACT that living in a nation organized as a representative republic ENTAILS that you and I agree to delegate some of our natural rights.
            If you DON’T, fine.  Fluck leave.  I’m sure not saying you have to give up anything.  Just go.
            I will, when the impositions on my “self ownership” get intolerable.  But I won’t tell the lie that what exists DOES NOT exist.  Which is what you do.

          • Every day you stay here, you ratify that contract.

            I decree that the entire North American continent is henceforth called Elliotonia. I am the emperor and you must abide my rules. Every day you stay here, you agree to my terms.
            You haven’t read Spooner, thus you’re lying to claim you understand contracts.
            It is your invention (well, you’re mimicking the likes of Spiro Agnew) that the burden is upon me to leave a place in which my ancestors settled because some as$holes decided to make up rules. Since individualism as a political movement was invented right here, by people including my ancestors who fought the Brits, then all of you “social construction” collectivists should haul your idiot asses back across the pond to Europe.  That you don’t leave shows you have no integrity.
            No, that’s not a “I’m rubber you’re glue argument”, it’s simply a reordering of the matter based upon that which makes America unique in the world. I belong here. You don’t.

            I never said ‘morality is a social construct’

            You’re not honest enough to connect the dots. But “social contract” and socially constructed morality are fruits of the same rotten tree, both based upon the denial that each individual owns his own life.

            Oh, and that “self ownership” thingy…
            We agree on the basics….

            We do not.  Right here:

            …I agree to delegate some of our natural rights.

            Note how you go from “I” to “our”, your little slide into collectivism. It’s funny how you agree to delegate some of our rights, not: “I agree to delegate some of my rights.”
            You have no position to challenge my integrity as you’ve just demonstrated your utter inability to take two steps without directly contradicting the basics upon which you allege that we agree.
            I would never presume to delegate any of your rights.  They are yours and you have exclusive authority with which to choose how you delegate.
            I’m a better man than that. I’m for damned sure a better man than you.
            Now, repeat your same Erbian mantra about social contracts, repeat the “go live on an island” schtick, your “love it or leave it” fascism.  And, for goodness sake, do not ever go back and answer any of the questions I put to you previously, of which you are obviously terrified.

          • …I agree to delegate some of our natural rights.”’
            Except that is not what I said, liar.  You need to lie to keep this up.  You are bleeding really badly.

          • Except that is not what I said, liar.

            You are correct that I misrepresented what you wrote. I was too quick to grab that clip that I overlooked the “you and I….” and only put it “I”.  That was not intentional.  Regrettable, of course, but not deliberate.
            But the end result is no different.  It is a lie to claim that “you and I” did something when I did no such thing. Again, go read Spooner.

            Decent, rational people can live along side one another in an agorist/voluntarist arrangement. No rights need to be sacrificed. No aggressive use of force used to make others do your will.  Division of labor, specialization, mediation, etc. can all work just fine to allow for peaceful and productive living.
            What prevents that?  Predators–both the common thug, con artist, and the like, as well as those whose predations are done while wearing a uniform or under some title.  Also, the moochers, cowards, uneducated, dullards, and the like who easily grant permission to the second sort of predator to prey on them and everyone else for the illusion of safety.
            I am not an idealist. I know full well that such a voluntary form of relationships will never take root because of the predators and the Eloi.  I’m not expecting any libertarian revolt and I damned sure don’t expect any vote to ever undo the damage of previous political acts.  I might just accept things as unavoidable and be happy with you Republican voters when the Democrats lose, if only the Republicans weren’t stupid, spineless, and just a slightly different flavor of authoritarian wannabes.
            I can still have decent conversations with some Republican voters. I can get them to see how the government violates our rights, to have a more realistic view of freedom, even if we still disagree on the whole democracy thing.  But there are certain people, like you, who just can’t stand to hear facts which hurt your feelings.
            You have to attack me, not for promoting harm to others, not for wanting to deny others freedom or to take what doesn’t belong to me. No, you attack me because I’m “absolutist”, i.e., “extremist”, i.e., I do something (which you don’t really define), “too much” (by your emotional scale).  You damn the pure for their purity, the good for their goodness.  What you really want is for me not to be so “absolute” on matters of individual rights, for example. Get a little dirty. Compromise. Say fluck it and just stick it to someone who’s an Obama supporter, just so you have a knife with my fingerprints on it.
            Go do your own dirty work and stop trying to prove that everyone is a little dirty too, in order to assuage your self-loathing guilt.

          • Good grief…

          • “Good grief” indeed!

  • War on Women Update:  Women lose 180,000 jobs in March – Men gain 372,000 jobs in March!

    http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2014/04/war-on-women-update-180000-american.html

    • Those jobs were lost because evil Republican/capitalist male bosses are sexist. Voting Democrat is the only way to put them in their place. Just one more election and the right people will be in office to fix all this. Promise!

  • Well, this is too late to influence the 2012 election but still good news if lessons learned will be implemented in the 2016 election.

    • They have been.  Future requests for revealing voter information by review boards not exclusively or safely controlled by Democrat lAckeys will be delayed or derailed to the point of uselessness.

  • The IRS has been pursuing the Founder of TRUE THE VOTE and colluded with the FBI, ATF, EPA,  and OSHA to harass her because she is trying to prevent voter fraud!

    • Well, sure – Obama told us about “reward your friends and punish your enemies” years ago.
      Rewards?  See all the Big Bundlers whose Green Boondoggle companies have received billions of taxpayer dollars in loans, then gone bankrupt.  Oopsie!  But those Big Bundlers got nice fat salaries for the two/ three/  four years those unworkable companies survived.  I’d bet the salaries eclipse the bundling. . .
      And punishments?  Weeeellll –  if you’ve GOT an IRS an an EPA and an FBI and so forth, it seems sorta wasteful not to USE them, knowwumsayen?  Especially for a politician with no accomplishments, whose career was manufactured for him by unknown handlers in the cesspit of Chicago.