In the eyes of the Obama administration, most Democratic lawmakers, and left-leaning editorial pages across the country, voter fraud is a problem that doesn’t exist. Allegations of fraud, they say, are little more than pretexts conjured up by Republicans to justify voter ID laws designed to suppress Democratic turnout.
That argument becomes much harder to make after reading a discussion of the 2008 Minnesota Senate race in “Who’s Counting?”, a new book by conservative journalist John Fund and former Bush Justice Department official Hans von Spakovsky. Although the authors cover the whole range of voter fraud issues, their chapter on Minnesota is enough to convince any skeptic that there are times when voter fraud not only exists but can be critical to the outcome of a critical race.
In the ’08 campaign, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman was running for re-election against Democrat Al Franken. It was impossibly close; on the morning after the election, after 2.9 million people had voted, Coleman led Franken by 725 votes.
Franken and his Democratic allies dispatched an army of lawyers to challenge the results. After the first canvass, Coleman’s lead was down to 206 votes. That was followed by months of wrangling and litigation. In the end, Franken was declared the winner by 312 votes. He was sworn into office in July 2009, eight months after the election.
During the controversy a conservative group called Minnesota Majority began to look into claims of voter fraud. Comparing criminal records with voting rolls, the group identified 1,099 felons — all ineligible to vote — who had voted in the Franken-Coleman race.
And now you know, that’s how we got Al Franken. Who was the deciding vote that passed Obamacare.
Ah! If only Al Franken had tried to molest this women, problem solved!
“If you think it can’t get worse than transexuals or pedophiles, you’re really not understanding how this works. Look at this NYT article: a black woman, ex-con, convicted of murdering her own 4 year old son. She served 20 years of prison, which she spent studying sociology or something. After leaving prison, she applied to study a PhD at Harvard, which rejected her. Progressives were on arms. How could you!
“Go to the link, and look at that woman. Look at that face. She never expressed any remorse over killing her children. She lied about it in the PhD application. She disposed of the body and never told the cops where her son’s corpse is! This is utter and complete psycho. Nobody on it’s right mind would want anything to do with this woman.
But that’s precisely the point. In most human societies before 1900 she would have been killed, legally or extralegally. But precisely this kind of person, what should in all justice be the lowest status person on earth; that’s exactly the people that the Left wants on its team. You can count on her extreme loyalty to any progressive idea that the party transmits to her. And so, yes, of course, she finally got her PhD, at New York University. And unlike 97% of PhD students out there, you can bet on her getting a full tenured professorship very soon.
On June 9, 1969, California appellate judge Macklin Fleming, a Yale Law graduate, wrote a letter to Dean Louis Pollak questioning the wisdom of the new quota system.
From your remarks and those of Dean Poor, I understand that 43 black students have been admitted to next fall’s class, of whom 5 qualified under the regular standards and 38 did not. … You also said that the future policy of the Law School will be to admit 10 per cent of each entering class without regard to qualification under regular standards.
The immediate damage to the standards of Yale Law School needs no elaboration. But beyond this, it seems to me the admission policy adopted by the Law School faculty will serve to perpetuate the very ideas and prejudices it is designed to combat. If in a given class the great majority of the black students are at the bottom of the class, this factor is bound to instill, unconsciously at least, some sense of intellectual superiority among the white students and some sense of intellectual inferiority among the black students.
No one can be expected to accept an inferior status willingly. The black students, unable to compete on even terms in the study of law, inevitably will seek other means to achieve recognition and self-expression. This is likely to take two forms. First, agitation to change the environment from one in which they are unable to compete to one in which they can. Demands will be made for elimination of competition, reduction in standards of performance, adoption of courses of study which do not require intensive legal analysis, and recognition for academic credit of sociological activities which have only an indirect relationship to legal training.
Currently, the orientals in California, roughly 1 per cent of the population, comprise in some instances 30 per cent of the enrollment in certain engineering and technical schools. Were a quota system to be introduced in those schools in order to favor black and Mexican-American applicants, the first losers would be applicants from the presently disproportionately represented oriental group.
The point of the objection to AA should be that it doesn’t work and has been proven time and time again to be more detrimental to the Black students than anyone else. Students shoved upwards into schools or programs that are beyond their ability or level of perpetration do not succeed. It was to cover over this result that the lowering of standards and ‘grade inflation’ started. The system that was in place before did a pretty good job of placing students into those colleges they were well suited for. There unquestionably was race discrimination at the time that placed barriers to qualified non-white students getting into many colleges. That issue could have been and should have been corrected without delay and comprehensively. That is not what Affirmative Action did.
Affirmative Action put unprepared and unqualified students into programs they were not ready for. And someone actually thought that this was a ‘Victory’. To conceal the rate of failure, those traditional standards of academic achievement that were in the way were either weakened or overridden. If a structure has rot, don’t paint over the rot. Because if you do, eventually the house will fall down.
President Trump has pulled off a financial miracle in China. He is returning with over $250 billion in business deals between our two countries. China thinks it is miraculous as well. On his final day in Beijing, Trump and China’s President Xi Jinping oversaw a ceremony in which corporate giants such as Boeing and Qualcomm signed multibillion-dollar deals. “This is truly a miracle,” China’s Commerce Minister Zhong Shan said at a news briefing in Beijing. I call that a thawing of relations and very positive.
Don’t get me wrong, I still don’t trust the Chinese. I never well. But it looks like Trump has found a middle ground of true compromise on a business level. The Chinese respect someone who knows how to deal and shows the proper respect and deference, while still being strong in his own right. Trump says that he is looking forward to a change in the U.S.-China relationship. “Discussing trade … knowing that the United States really has to change its policies because they’ve gotten so far behind on trade with China and frankly with many other countries,” he said.
Why the hell haven’t we elected a competent businessman as President before now?