The facts for this article, but not the legal conclusions, come from an article in the Wall Street Journal today, 1 November, 2008. The title of this article is, "Will this Election be Stolen?" It was written by Hans A. von Spakovsky, who is a visiting legal scholar at the Heritage Foundation, also has served as a former federal election commissioner.
It is a long article, going deep into the elective history of the United States, from Framers who passed out whiskey to voters who supported them, to Tammany Hall and Boss Tweed in New York, to recent convictions of individuals for vote fraud in various jurisdictions in modern times. The point of the article is that both the opportunity and intent to cheat in the results of elections has been around since the beginning of our Republic.
The article has several references to ACORN, the liberal, Democrat organization that has been involved in vote fraud in almost a third of the states, the "battleground" states, in this election, and in many states in prior elections. The article does not get down to the level of detail as this point: it has just come out that the current Secretary of State of Ohio, who has refused to investigate and pursue massive fraud in that key state by ACORN, had an official of ACORN assisting in her last election.
For a review of the involvement of ACORN in election fraud, both criminal convictions and investigations, Google these three words together: ACORN, election, and fraud. You will get about 311,000 hits. If you want a current summary with less than a third of a million of sources, visit this website: www.defendmyvote.com
The only point not included in the Wall Street Journal article is, who will be the shock troops who go out to defend the actions of those who are now, even as you read this, trying to steal the 2008 presidential election. Those shock troops will be lawyers representing or affiliated with the ACLU.
To establish this relationship, just Google these two words: ACLU and election. You will get about 544,000 hits. Review the details and you will find the ACLU going to court claiming to "protect voters from discrimination." The problem in this claim is what the word "voter" means.
To the ACLU it means any name which is likely to cast a Democratic vote. It does not matter whether the "voter" actually exists, is an American citizen, or is voting for second, third or fourth time. And that is the whole point of investigating vote fraud. The idea is a simple one: votes should be cast by American citizens who live where they say they are, and who are voting once, and only once. It is not discrimination to tell people who are not qualified to vote, that they cannot vote. That is only common sense.
Based on the actions of the ACLU so far, and its actions in prior elections, it has a phalanx of lawyers briefcases at hand, with their car motors running, ready to go to court wherever they can to defend the results of efforts at vote fraud. It is as simple as that. This article gives the historical setting in which such efforts to corrupt the vote, take place.
Source of this story on the Net: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122550203122290071.html?mod=article-outset-box