The Democrats have a plan to get reelected despite sinking poll numbers. It is called universal voter registration.

Have you been wondering why they are pushing so many unpopular bills all at once, as though they didn’t care what the voters wanted? Ruining our health care system, sacrificing our national sovereignty, pandering to terrorists, increasing our energy costs, plunging the nation into hopeless debt, and trampling on individual rights? Have you been wondering why the Democrats are so unconcerned that they lost two governorships in landslide votes in Virginia and New Jersey?

They plan to change the electoral landscape before voters can retaliate. Here’s how, as described by Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund, speaking at the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s Restoration Weekend this past November:

Transcript:

Democrats were very rattled by the November 3rd election results. What do liberals do when they lose elections? They change the rules. In January, Chuck Schumer and Barney Frank will propose universal voter registration.

What is universal voter registration? It means all of the state laws on elections will be overridden by a federal mandate. The feds will tell the states, “Take everyone on every list of welfare recipients you have, take everyone on every list of unemployed you have, take everyone on every list of property owners, take everyone on every list of driver’s license holders, and register them to vote regardless of whether they want to be.”

By the way, there’ll be felon reinfranchisement too. At that point, you have destroyed the integrity of the registration process.

Now they will sell this very cleverly. They will say, “Well, OK, ACORN did have some problems with voter registration. We shouldn’t have these third party rogue groups out there. So let’s put ACORN out of business. Let’s register everybody.”

Now the problem, of course, is there are a lot of duplicates. And there are a lot of people on those rolls who are illegal aliens. It’s not a clean list. They don’t care. So, this is the issue you haven’t heard about. There’s a reason you haven’t heard about it. They don’t want you to hear about it.

The path between the day this bill is introduced and the day it hits the House floor will probably be less than two weeks. Get ready for it. You can stop it. Don’t get me wrong. But this is their stealth bill that is even more sneaky than the health care bill.

From Democrats’ suicide strategy; do they know something we don’t? by Jim Simpson (12/29/09):

Much has been made about how Democrats are committing political suicide with the healthcare bill and all the other onerous legislation they have proposed and/or passed this year. There is no mistaking that these actions are extremely unpopular….

But those who believe in this “Democrat suicide” model implicitly assume next November’s elections will be free and fair….

From Dems positioning to rig November elections? by Allan Erickson (1/04/10):

Can falsified registrations become votes? If the feds push universal voter registration by overriding state elections procedures, you bet, says John Fund of the WSJ….

If you think ACORN voter registration and fraud threaten the integrity of the American electoral process, just wait until Chuck Schumer and Barney Frank get their way.

For many years, John Fund has been warning about Democrat efforts to redesign the electoral process. These ‘reforms’ are sold as ways of improving the process. Fund insists they are designed to manage favorable outcomes for Democrats, going so far as to say last November that the Democrats are working to subvert and corrupt the voter registration process….

We have always held to the tradition that individuals register themselves. This is a built-in system to maintain integrity. Allowing the federal government to jam universal voter registration opens the process to corruption, but that is the purpose.

Democrats know full well they’ll reap millions of votes in the process, once the process is corrupted in this way.

From What the Dems know that we don’t by Jim Simpson (1/4/10):

Many are puzzled that Democrats persist in ramming unpopular and destructive legislation down our collective throats while seemingly unconcerned by their plummeting poll numbers. A widespread belief is that the Democrats are committing political suicide and will be swept from one or both houses of Congress with unprecedented electoral losses next November. But since Democrat politicians rarely do things that will not ultimately benefit themselves, this column asked two weeks ago: “what do they know that we don’t?”

We may have found out. It’s called universal voter registration….

The problems with universal voter registration are numerous and obvious. Many state lists include vast numbers of illegals, including some states which allow illegals to obtain driver’s licenses; because many homeowners have more than one home there will be duplicates; because so many people are on so many separate federal and state government agency lists, there will be duplicates, and because so many lists exist with little or no cross-checking capability these duplicates are likely to go uncorrected. Add to this the fact that Dems hope to extend voting rights to felons and the whole thing begins to look like a nationwide Democrat voter registration drive facilitated by taxpayers….

UPDATE, January 21, 2010: Jim Simpson reports a correction to the remarks made by John Fund last year:

The issue was John Fund’s naming of Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) as pushing universal voter registration legislation along with point man, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Fund said this in a recorded panel discussion at David Horowitz’s Restoration Weekend last November. I cited Fund’s remarks in an article published in early January. Now there is no dispute that universal voter registration legislation is being contemplated and that Chuck Schumer has been its main instigator, but when Frank subsequently objected to being identified with it, Fund corrected himself that he had meant to say “John Conyers.”

UPDATE, February 3, 2010: U.S. Rep. Barney Frank has posted a press release on his government website specifically denying this story:

…John Fund, a writer for the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, claimed that Congressman Barney Frank and Senator Chuck Schumer had hatched a plan to game the election system by registering felons, illegal aliens and others to vote…. Congressman Frank has never worked on any such legislation and in fact heard about it for the first time after the story was launched in the conservative media….

Here is video of Barney Frank speaking about this subject on the floor of the House of Representatives:

One common assumption about democracy is that the choice of an elected leader will represent the preference of the majority of the people governed. Let’s take a look at the last half-century of presidential elections to see how often this has been true in the United States …… never.

From the total residential and expatriate population of the United States, those eligible to vote are that subset meeting the following qualifications:

• person is of voting age
• person is a legal citizen, by birth or naturalization
• person is not institutionalized, or has not had franchise revoked due to crime

From the pool of eligible voters, only a percentage make the effort to establish their bona fides with their local precinct and place their authorized signature in the voting records, becoming registered voters.

During an election, not all of the registered voters participate. The voter turnout fluctuates from year to year, but is usually higher during presidential election years than for those in-between years featuring only state or local races.

Authentic democracy occurs when two conditions are met:

• 100% of eligible citizens register to vote
• 100% of registered voters participate in an election

The table above shows, in effect, the degree to which the United States election process differs from real democracy due to civic laziness and voter apathy.

References:

An excellent research project is ongoing at George Mason University (GMU), Fairfax, Virginia under the auspices of Dr. Michael McDonald, Associate Professor, Department of Public and International Affairs. The United States Elections Project gives a detailed summary of relevant data for the years 1980 through 2006. More importantly, it shows that the apparent decline in voter participation reported by the United States Census Bureau results from their analytical methods, rather than actual voting patterns. Two important definitions from the GMU project:

VAP — The voting-age population is defined by the Bureau of the Census as everyone residing in the United States, age 18 and older. Before 1971, the voting-age population was age 21 and older.

VEP — The voting-eligible population is the population that is eligible to vote. Counted among the voting-age population are persons who are ineligible to vote, such as non-citizens, felons (depending on state law), and mentally incapacitated persons. Not counted are persons in the military or civilians living overseas.

The voting age population totals used in our study for the years 1960 and 1964 are from the U.S. Census Bureau report for those two years. The VAP totals used for the years 1968 through 2004 are from the U.S. Census Bureau Report Registration Rates in Presidential Election Years.

Prior to 1980 the difference between the voting age population and the number of eligible voters in any given presidential election year was less than one or two percent of the total population. Since separate official VEP numbers are not available for those years, we used VAP data as the basis of calculation. However, as the discrepancy began to grow rapidly with the onslaught of illegal immigration, we used the available VEP data from 1980 onward.

The eligible voter totals (in millions) for the years 1980 through 2004 used in our computations are from the GMU research. The registration totals (in millions) for the years 1964 through 1996 used in our computations are from the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The registration totals compiled by the FEC for the year 1960 do not include sixteen states, and so we did not make a computation for that year. The voter turnout totals (in millions) for the years 1960 through 1996 are also from the FEC. Both the registration totals and the voter turnout totals for the years 2000 and 2004 are from the U.S. Census Bureau.

The percent of eligible voters who did their civic duty and registered for each presidential election is computed by dividing the registration toal by the eligible voter total (or the VAP total prior to 1980). The percent of turnout is computed by dividing the turnout total by the eligible voter total.

The Winner Total percentages from 1960 through 2000 are taken from President Elect, the unofficial website of the United States Electoral College. They differ only slightly from the numbers given on another popular reference page, History Central, which is also often quoted.

The popular support for every president-elect represents the percentage of eligible voters who actuallly wanted that candidate to be president. It is computed by multiplying the percentage turnout by the percentage of votes garnered by the winner. In every case it is considerably less than half of the electorate. Contrary to media spin, the least popular president-elect in the last half-century was Bill Clinton, who was favored by only one quarter of the electorate in both of his successful bids for the office.

Archbishop disputes reporting: Chaput says N.Y. Times story is ‘misleading’

Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput is disputing a front page story in Tuesday’s New York Times on the church and politics, saying “a lot of what I said in the original interview was simply ignored.”

“I was disappointed with the misleading nature of the Times story,” Chaput said in an e-mail Wednesday….

The archdiocese took the unusual step of releasing the text of the taped interview with the Times on its Web site, and sending it to news organizations. It called the story “heavily truncated” and invited readers to compare it with the transcript.

Even Archbishops now know to tape an interview. We live in a sorry world where the Times will misrepresent what an Archbishop says.

*******************************************************

Kerry Spokesman Appears to Threaten TV Network Set to Air ‘Stolen Honor’

Chad Clanton, a spokesman for the Kerry campaign, appeared on a Fox News program Tuesday and suggested that the Sinclair Broadcasting Group might regret airing a documentary that focuses on the Democratic candidate’s antiwar activities….

Clanton issued what appeared to be a threat to the network when he told host Linda Vester, “I think they’re going to regret doing this and they better hope we don’t win.”

Bush has had to endure movies, books, and email campaigns claiming he is going to draft everybody, etc. and has done so with dignity and confidence. One video about Kerry and they go bonkers–filing lawsuits and making ugly threats on national television.

Clanton issued what appeared to be a threat to the network when he told host Linda Vester, “I think they’re going to regret doing this and they better hope we don’t win.”

Or WHAT?? Then they find a Democrat in the FEC to give a comment. Well, if this is in any way illegal, I am sure the FEC will prevent it being shown. But will they also prevent Michael Moore from running his Fahrenheit 9/11 as he is preparing to do on Pay-per-view the very same night? Why does only one side have freedom of speech in this election?

At least Bush can “take it like a man” cowboy up and doesn’t run whining every time something is done critical of him as does Crybaby Kerry. You’d think a big war hero would be tougher than this. Goose/gander.

*******************************************************

Colorado Allows Unregistered Voters To Cast Ballots In November Election

Colorado became an important state to watch in the upcoming presidential election on Tuesday when Secretary of State Donetta Davidson announced that unregistered voters will be allowed to cast a ballot on November 2 because of voter registration problems….

The secretary of state explained that people will be given the opportunity to vote with provisional ballots as long as they can produce a photo identification and take an oath that they are who they say they are. Additionally, Davidson wants poll workers to ask the voters where they registered, with whom they registered, and when they registered before being given a provisional ballot.

“I guess all I can say … is I hope voters are honest,” Davidson stated.

Looks like they got their way about this. Note the comment that she hopes their voters are honest! Oh, my aching back — gimme a break! How does she think this happened in the first place if the voters are so honest! I wonder how many can be bussed into Colorado on election day, after voting in their home precinct to cast yet another ballot. Quite a few, I would venture to guess. After the failure in Florida, more drastic measures are being taken to insure the correct result this time by the party determined to win at any cost, even the destruction of our entire voting system.

Maybe people in Canada and the EU who have been wanting to vote so badly can just fly in and vote compliments of Soros. The possibilities for fraud are just endless but you can bet it will happen with this open system. The right to vote means nothing to some who will abuse in any manner possible to achieve their end.

********************************************************

The Last SwiftVet Ad

Actually it’s two ads and Red State has the transcripts. The first one is poignant, the second is a haymaker.

Here are links to the videos: “They Served” and “Why“.

I continue to hear that the SwiftBoat Vets have been “debunked” yet no one can tell me who or when this happened. They certainly have NOT and these two new ads are quite effective at pointing this out. Will the ever more deranged left dare to call two Medal of Honor Winners liars? And all in favor of John Kerry? Why would they do such a thing?