Printer FriendlyI’ve gotten some spirited feedback on yesterday’s blog post, in which I said that the Democrat Party works hard to facilitate voter fraud. In fairness to my readers I should probably offer up more data in support of the accusation.
Fortunately there is plenty of data to adduce. Democrat Party machines have been stuffing ballot boxes for at least sixteen decades. I’m not saying that Repubs. have never been guilty of election day crimes, but history shows that the Dems have been far more successful at it.
In New York City, for example, the Tammany Hall machine was rigging elections all the way back to the Boss Tweed era of the 1850’s. In the 1896 election, New York businessmen like Diamond Jim Brady had to keep their support for William McKinley secret, because they knew Tammany Hall would destroy anyone in the city who supported a Republican Presidential candidate.
In the aftermath of the Civil War, Southern Democrats used poll taxes, grandfather clauses, and other legal maneuvers (not to mention illegal maneuvers involving the Ku Klux Klan) to keep blacks from getting to the polls. Republicans fought back with the Fourteenth Amendment, which among other things makes race-based voting restrictions illegal.
For over half a century, Democrat Machine politics have dominated politics in Chicago. Mayor Richard Daley Sr. is widely credited with helping JFK win a razor-thin Presidential election by mobilizing thousands of dead and non-existant Chicago residents to vote Democrat, and things haven’t changed much since then. In 1982 the US Attorney in Chicago estimated that the party machine manufactured at least 100,000 extra votes in an attempt to defeat Republican gubernatorial candidate James Thompson. Sixty-three people were convicted of election fraud.
After the 1996 Congressional Elections Bob Dornan, a California Repub., lost his seat to a Dem. by only 984 votes. There is evidence to suggest that the number of votes cast by illegal aliens was greater than Dornan’s margin of defeat. Dornan could only conclusively prove that 547 of the votes had come from non-citizens, so the result was allowed to stand.
In 2004 Dem. Christine Gregoire won Washington’s gubernatorial race on a controversial re-count marked by various irregularities. Her defeated Repub. opponent was unable to prove in court that the irregularities had made the difference in the final count.
Also in 2004, Dem Al Franken won a Senate seat in Minnesota on an equally controversial re-count in which twenty-five different pro-Franken precincts mysteriously produced more ballots than registered voters. All the extra ballots counted in the final total.
Like my website? Read my book!
A Self-Made Nation
Washington and Minnesota weren’t the only blue states with interesting vote-counting practices in 2004. In Wisconsin, Dem John Kerry won the state’s electoral votes and hoped that no one would notice that the ballots outnumbered the legal voters to the tune of more than 4,500 votes. The left wing group ACORN was heavily involved in the process. In Milwaukee, the police department conducted an investigation and reported that eighteen poll officials had felony records, and that eight of the eighteen had been sponsored by ACORN.
Speaking of the devil, eighteen foot soldiers for ACORN were convicted of, or confessed to, election fraud in calendar year 2010. Republicans, with the help of a few embarrassed Democrats, cut off federal funding for the group, which promptly re-named and re-organized itself to escape from its tarnished reputation.
In 2012 Repubs. in Congress are fighting to keep the Countrywide settlement from becoming a political slush fund for the various re-named ACORN offices across the nation.
It may sound one-sided to say that the Republicans are fighting voter fraud while the Dems are fighting to facilitate it, but the facts really are just about that one-sided.
To Corey, You have been duped into your thinking of the party switch. Try looking up the different party platforms at the time. At this site. w w w . presidency.ucsb.edu , you will find that the republicans have not wavered. FYI the site is not freely sway-able to boycotts to true.
oh i see an ill-informed liberal is here trying to rewrite history and claiming her dem party which has not changed has changed. please provide supporting evidence and not just make claims
The left, predictably, says this type of talk is dangerous to the integrity of our electoral system, and then glibly asks for Mr. Trump to prove his voter fraud allegations.
@ Corey,
Thanks for your comment. Since you say the Republicans are the ones who are “the actual perpetrators of all this voter fraud,” I have a ready answer for you. You should support laws that require voters to show picture ID when registering or voting, and laws that provide for purging fictitious or dead voters from the rolls.
If you support voter integrity laws of this kind you will make it harder for those sneaky Republicans to steal elections from the Democrats via the kind of fraud you are so concerned about.
Agreed?
It truly makes me laugh out loud when someone tries to say the Republican party of the Civil War era is the same as the Republican party of today even though they stood for everything opposite of today’s Republican party. All so they can say they are the party of Lincoln when they are nowhere close to it. The Civil War Republican party fought for civil rights for all. Higher taxes. Bigger government. And today’s party is aligned with hate groups like the KKK and Focus on the Family.
This article actually says “we are the actual perpetrators of all of this voter fraud but semantics allows us to blame it on them”.
Unfortunately, though your post has some good stuff in it that I wanted to use as reference, it also contains a one-sided argument that overlooks at the very least Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. It would be honest to say that both parties are guilty.
The comment that crs 52 left on April 5 was a good example of what CS Lewis once called “just that sort of anger that lets a writer know he’s hit his mark.”
Mr. 52 tells me that I “haven’t provided a shred of documentation,” even though my post has links to news articles documenting every claim I make.
When someone gets that angry about facts that contradict his beliefs, he’s getting very close to having an epiphany.
Al Fuller
You have a pretty particular notion of what “facts” are, since what you are calling “facts” are cherry-picked or simply false. Either you did no real research before writing this article or you’re simply lying through your teeth. And it’s certainly presumptious to call this “history” when you haven’t provided a shred of documentation to support your “facts” -probably because no legitimate documentation exists for it.