Voting Fraud OK’d by the 9th Circuit

Voting irregularities have begun popping up, no surprise there. In North Carolina and Nevada, early voters have encountered ballot machine glitches that favor Democrats in hotly contested races. In Troy, N.Y., and Daytona Beach, Fla., police investigations into suspected absentee ballot fraud by elected government officials are underway. In Harris County, Texas, the voter registrar admitted that 20 percent of voter registration forms submitted by the liberal activist group Houston Votes had problems. The people who made this information public there are now being investigated by the Obama Justice Department and have been slapped with an ethics complaint by the Texas Democratic Party and a left-wing billionaire George Soros-funded group called Texans for Public Justice. The Justice Department refuses to prosecute organized disobedience of the MOVE act, but point out a violation of the law and they’ll be all over you, but not the lawbreaker.

In Yuma County, Ariz., election officials denied any fraud associated with thousands of requests for “permanent early voter list” status submitted en masse by open-borders group Mi Familia Vota (a social justice satellite group of the Service Employees International Union). But election officials admitted that some 6,000 out of 14,000 requests fielded by the Yuma County Recorder’s Office “were reviewed and rejected, under Arizona law, either due to the fact the request was a duplicate or the requestor was not eligible to vote in this election or within the jurisdiction.”

Liberals shrugged their shoulders at reports of illegal alien canvassers trolling for votes in Washington State. Not surprising, considering the radical goals spelled out by SEIU International Secretary-Treasurer and Mi Familia Vota founder Eliseo Medina, who views illegal alien amnesty as a powerful Democratic recruitment tool to capture millions of new progressive voters. By the way, who fixes the voting machines that are “glitching” in favor of the democrats? SEIU. You know, if there were a republican group that had its fingers all over voting fraud, the Obama justice department would be handing out RICO indictments left and right.

For as little as you have heard about that, you’ve heard even less about the Court of Appeals in San Francisco, and their incredibly poor decision the other day. The court invalidated parts of Arizona’s Proposition 200, a 2004 voter- approved initiative on registration for state and federal elections. A three-judge panel of the court, in a 2-1 decision, said the proof-of-citizenship requirement conflicted with the intent of the federal law aiming to increase voter registration by streamlining the process with a single form and removing state- imposed obstacles to registration. That law? Yup! Clinton’s Motor Voter Act.

People have rights, and those rights come with responsibilities. Conversely, people have responsibilities to the body politic, and those responsibilities come with rights. For example, we fought a revolution over the idea of no taxation without representation.

Nations also have rights, and responsibilities. Two of the indispensable and inalienable rights that nations have are the right to define and defend its borders, and the right to determine who is, and who is not, eligible to exercise the rights of citizens.

The court has, in this case, said that requiring someone to prove they are a citizen before allowing them to vote is illegal. The court has eliminated one of the traditional rights of a nation. It is unlikely that the Supreme Court will uphold this decision, since it goes directly to what it means to be a nation.

The case was brought by voting rights and Hispanic advocacy groups, who were quick to say that “The decision is a warning to anyone who seeks to deter or prevent voter participation that the Constitution will protect our democratic process,” Thomas A. Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, said in a statement. One would expect this from MALDEF. First, a misunderstanding of the nature of our government; second, a defense of the idea that anyone, regardless of citizen status, is entitled to participate in our elective process.

Oddly enough, this is the same court that decided that the other essential right of a nation, defending its borders, was not the province of any particular person or government, but only of the federal government. This is the circuit that seats the most infamous activist on the Ninth Circuit, Stephen Reinhardt, who in reaction to his frequent reversals by the Supreme Court once declared, “They can’t catch ’em all.”

Some enterprising young attorney should file a suit on behalf of every citizen, alleging that the failure to require proof of citizenship before allowing people to vote unconstitutionally dilutes each person’s vote. Such actions have been recognized as valid claims by the Supreme Court.

It appears to me that we, and by that I mean citizens, are now saddled with a government that is not indifferent to our rights in regard to voting, but is actively hostile to the notion that voting is a privilege of citizenship and a right that attaches to a citizen by the Constitution. The current occupants of the seats of power would do well to remember that the revolution was fought over the idea that citizens have an absolute right to an undiluted vote.