Obama's Next Voter Fraud Drive

From Floyd Reports:

Obama’s Next Vote Fraud Drive?




Posted on September 3, 2010 by Ben Johnson



The organization that brought Barack Obama to Chicago as a “community organizer” is ready to launch a new voter registration drive. Voters have reason for concern, since the organization often hires ACORN members to perform its registrations, its activities have been investigated by the FBI, and its board members include one of the originators of the Cloward-Piven strategy.



Voting For America, “an affiliate of the voting rights nonprofit Project Vote,” plans to “help” more than 50,000 students in seven states register to vote. The Sierra Club has contracted VFA to perform the drive on its behalf.



The states targeted are such battlegrounds as Ohio, Colorado, Nevada, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Oregon. Each state high-profile elections looming in November.



Executive director Michael Slater said Project Vote created VFA this year “as a means of making the systems, strategies, and tools we’ve developed available to other organizations.”



Share the stealth.



Among the “services” VFA “will contribute” are “legal services,” presumably when its registration cards are challenged in court. Their history assures they will be.



Voter Fraud



The FBI investigated Project Vote and ACORN as part of its inquiry into the massive registration of non-existent voters. Judicial Watch obtained handwritten notes FBI officers took during interviews with the staff. (The two work in close tandem.)



One interviewee told the FBI, “Project Vote will pay” six dollars per voting card, “fake or not.” Why would the group want fraudulent cards? Thankfully, the interrogators literally spelled their reasons out, in longhand (and I quote):



■To cause confusion on election day to keep polls open longer.

■To allow people who can’t vote to vote.

■To allow to vote multiple times.

According to an insider, the Democratic Party and Barack Obama colluded in the group’s efforts. Former Project Vote employee Anita Moncrief testified under oath that both the Democratic Party and the Obama campaign had furnished Project Vote with maxed-out donor lists, so they could fund its vote drives. It seems both organizations understood this as Democratic advocacy by other means. Upon the revelation, Project Vote sued Moncrief for $5 million, but its case was thrown out of court.



The Democrats had good reason to believe ACORN/Project Vote was doing partisan bidding. The head of Project Vote’s 2004 efforts in Florida noted in writing that all PV’s efforts aimed to “defeat George W. Bush and other Republicans by increasing Democrat turnout in a close election…and…catalyze the construction of permanent progressive political infrastructure that will help redirect Florida politics in a more progressive, Democratic direction.”



If any group should know how to build a permanent political army for the Left, it is Project Vote’s Board of Directors.



Board of Radicals



One of VFA’s directors is Frances Fox Piven. She is best known as the second half of the Cloward-Piven strategy, the effort to flood welfare rolls until the system collapsed — and a new, socialist future took its place . Project Vote and ACORN have adapted the strategy to the voting rolls, and not all its beneficiaries are eligible.



Other board members include:

■Craig Kaplan, counsel to the law firm of Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky, & Lieberman. “Boudin” is Leonard B. Boudin, a Communist Party USA strategist who represented Daniel Ellsberg during The Pentagon Papers trial. His daughter, Kathy Boudin, served hard time for robbery and felony murder after she and other members of the Weather Underground knocked off a Brinks truck in 1981. The law firm acted as a Communist Party legal asset. It became the official legal representative of the Cuban government, defended Alger Hiss, and turned down the Rosenbergs over a scheduling conflict. Kaplan formerly served as counsel to the Voter Protection Project of America’s Families United. The Liberation News Service described it as one of “a host of advocacy and civil-rights groups, which often act in parallel with Democrats when it comes to expanding ballot access.” It added this “racial-justice advocacy group” had “set up a ‘voter protection project’ to ensure that its new registrants make it onto the rolls…Penda D. Hair, the project director, said her goal was to recruit 6,000 lawyers in 20 states who could challenge registrars when they reject applications improperly.” Kaplan was one.

■J. Philip Thompson, who wrote the book, Double Trouble: Black Mayors, Black Communities, and the Call for a Deep Democracy. It features an entire section on the use of the use of “patronage” as a tool of “mobilization.” Thompson noted “black mayors have sought to develop political capacity in poor black communities by supporting community and labor patronage…None of these organizations is strong enough individually to determine the outcome of an election, but together they may” (pp.67, 69). Lending credence to Moncrief’s claims, he added, “Officials can come to rely on non-profits to undertake voter registration” (p. 64). In his judgment, “centralized” government best concentrated such organizations’ power.

■Renee Brereton. After spending 19 years with the Alinskyite Catholic Campaign for Human Development, she became an organizer with the Gamaliel Foundation, a Soros-funded member of the Religious Left that promoted Open Borders and the Obama health care plan. Sociology Professor David Walls has written that the Gamaliel Foundation’s methods of organization were “indebted, in greater or lesser degree, to [Saul] Alinsky.” Founded in 1968 to assist Chicago’s impoverished black community, the Gamaliel Foundation became “reoriented to focus on community organizing” in 1986. Walls names it as one of three Alinsky-inspired organizations, “most of whose leaders got their start with” Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation.

■Frank Askin, a national board member and general counsel of the ACLU.

■Margaret Groarke, a co-author of Piven’s and co-chair of the Peace and Justice Studies Association.

■David O. Stevens, who recently asked readers of The Huffington Post, “What would you change in the Constitution?” (His pick? Abolishing the Electoral College, an integral part of the Founders’ vision to give small states and rural populations a greater voice. Stewart would prefer to disenfranchise these minorities.)

The board’s radicalism may have been what attracted a young Barack Obama to begin his life, not in the corporate world, but on the fraud-riddled extreme Left.



Obama’s Personal Ties





Vernon Jarrett, the father of Obama’s closest adviser, Valerie Jarrett, quoted Obama’s assessment of his work with Project Vote in the pages of the Chicago Sun-Times. Obama said his canvassers:



“must average 10,000 rather than 7,000 every week,” says Barack Obama, the program’s executive director…”There’s a lot of talk about `black power’ among the young but so little action.”



Obama remains tied to Project Vote. The group’s public relations are handled by Marilyn Katz, an Obama/Jarrett family friend who handled “security” for SDS at the 1968 Democratic National Convention. (She designed the nail-studded golfballs thrown at police.) In late 2008, she said, “I would probably reject violence as a useful form of revolution.” Probably?



Project Vote continues to testify before Congress on issues of registration and “underrepresented” communities (the dead and non-existent, one presumes), despite its long history of dubious practices. PV has a number of recommendations for Congress to enact. For instance: “No onerous restrictions should be placed on community-based voter registration drives, which serve an important role in encouraging participation among underrepresented populations.”



Project Vote helped fuel the smashing electoral triumph of its most popular alumnus. Journalist Lynn Sweet noted “Project Vote/ACORN” targeted “states Obama needs to win” just before the 2008 election. Is this new effort the midterm version?



That’s the question voters — and law enforcement officials — should be asking themselves.

And, from Judicial Watch:

From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:




A Special Prosecutor for ACORN Corruption?



Following the release of videos last year showing ACORN employees advising investigative journalists on how to skirt housing, child prostitution and tax laws, many speculated that the scandal would finally spell the end of the corrupt “community organization.”



But today ACORN is alive and well, splintered into rebranded local chapters across the country.



“The letters A, C, O, R and N are coming off office doors from New York to California,” The Associated Press reported recently. “Business cards are being reprinted. New signs with new names are popping up in front of offices.”



Meanwhile, ACORN’s “partner in crime,” Project Vote, has just launched a new “non-partisan” voter registration campaign in partnership with the Sierra Club. Under the auspices of its “Voting for America” program, Project Vote will handle “the development of voter registration and quality control protocols; assistance with recruitment, training, and supervision of canvassers; training and materials; and legal services.”



Apparently the Sierra Club is unconcerned that Project Vote employees have been under investigation — and convicted — in a number of states for voter registration fraud. The goal of the voter drive is to “help over 50,000 students of community and four-year colleges in seven states register to vote for the 2010 election.”



Vote for whom, you might ask? We all know the answer to that.



Back in 2006, a complaint was filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) regarding a Project Vote/ACORN collaboration during the 2004 campaign cycle. According to a draft plan crafted by Brian Kettenring, Project Vote’s Head Organizer in Florida, the ultimate goal of this campaign was to “defeat George W. Bush and other Republicans by increasing Democrat turnout in a close election … and … catalyze the construction of permanent progressive political infrastructure that will help redirect Florida politics in a more progressive, Democratic direction.”



CORRUPTION CHRONICLES

•More Scandal For Congressional Black Caucus

•Obama Shields Govt. Contractors From Disclosure Law

•U.S. Helps Radical Muslim Groups Get Taxpayer Dollars

•DOJ Sues Public Colleges Over Immigration Rule

•State Treasurer Hasn’t Paid Taxes In 10 Years

•ICE Ignores Cos That Hire Illegal Workers

•U.S. Files Discrimination Lawsuits On Behalf Of Muslims

•Senator Kept List Of Favors He Did For Bribes

•Sheriff Works To Protect Illegal Immigrants

So much for being non-partisan.



Last month, Judicial Watch obtained a batch of documents from the FEC related to the ACORN complaint, including the final draft of Kettenring’s plan. ACORN staff wisely scrubbed the most partisan language and persuaded the FEC to dispose of the complaint against it. The words “Democrat” and “Liberal” were replaced by the word “Progressive,” for example. But I think few Americans would be persuaded by such gamesmanship.



This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to evidence of ACORN's political partisanship and corruption.



Earlier this year, Judicial Watch obtained documents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) related to the 2007 investigation and arrest of eight St. Louis, Missouri, workers from ACORN for violation of election laws and voter fraud.



The documents include handwritten notes from FBI investigators interviewing, among others, canvassers. Among the shocking details from the FBI’s interview notes: “ACORN HQ is wkg for the Democratic Party.” Here are a few other highlights.



•[ACORN] “Told employees not to talk to the FBI. ‘FBI trying to intimidate you.’”

•Fraudulent cards:

•To cause confusion on election day to keep polls open longer

•To allow people who can’t vote to vote.

•To allow to vote multiple times.

•Project Vote will pay them whether cards fake or not — whatever they had to do to get the cards was attitude.

•Constantly threatened

•Staff restricted on what to say to FBI

•“Poverty pimpin” [sic] ACORN

•ACORN HQ is wkg for the Democratic Party.

•PV [Project Vote] pays ACORN $6.00 per card … Said “You treat the cards like (cash) $”

•Some [names] went right from the phone book and made up the rest.

•Canvassers: homeless, volatile, drug users, drunks

•Anyone who was against PV (Project Vote) or ACORN’s goals “right wing”

•She thought if she used a completely fake name it would be less like ID Theft … ”Yeah, it’s against the law, I know.”

In April 2008, all eight ACORN employees involved in the scandal pled guilty to voter registration fraud.



In March 2010, Judicial Watch obtained a separate batch of FBI documents detailing federal investigations into alleged ACORN corruption and voter registration fraud in Connecticut. The FBI and Department of Justice initiated these investigations.



However, the Obama Justice Department, while noting that ACORN had engaged in “questionable hiring and training practices,” closed down the investigation in March 2009, claiming ACORN broke no laws.



Remember, this is the same organization that paid “lazy crack heads” to fraudulently register voters, including names like “Mickey Mouse” and “Donald Duck.”



Given all of this evidence, much of it contained in the files of various government agencies, why has there been no comprehensive Obama Justice Department investigation of an organization deemed by at least one congressional report to be a “criminal enterprise?”



Perhaps it has something to do with President Obama’s close ties to ACORN, which is detailed on Obama’s own 2008 campaign website:



When Obama met with ACORN leaders in November, he reminded them of his history with ACORN and his beginnings in Illinois as a Project Vote organizer, a nonprofit focused on voter rights and education. Senator Obama said, “…I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois [sic], ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.”



Well, now ACORN is smack dab in the middle of a massive political corruption scandal.



The calls for the Obama Justice Department to launch a comprehensive probe of ACORN’s activities have been loud and persistent. And they have fallen on deaf ears.



Now is the time for a special prosecutor to do the job the Obama administration is unwilling to do: protect our elections from fraud and hold ACORN and its ally Project Vote accountable to the rule of law.



(This piece first ran in today’s Washington Examiner)



The Wall Street Journal on JW’s Bailout Lawsuit



The Wall Street Journal stated something in a lead editorial this week that Judicial Watch knows all too well: “On the key facts behind the bailouts of 2008, regulators have stonewalled the public, the press and even the inspector general of the Troubled Asset Relief Program.”



Judicial Watch is leading a focused and aggressive campaign to uncover the truth about the government’s massive bailout scheme. And, in fact, much of the Journal piece focused on a series of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits we have filed on behalf of former FDIC employee Vern McKinley.



Here’s a squib from the editorial:



A year ago we told you about former FDIC official Vern McKinley, who has made a series of Freedom of Information Act requests. He wanted to know what Fed governors meant when they said a Bear Stearns failure would cause a "contagion." This term was used in the minutes of the Fed meeting at which the central bank discussed plans by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to finance Bear's sale to J.P. Morgan Chase. The minutes contained no detail on how exactly the fall of Bear would destroy America.



He also requested minutes of the FDIC board meeting at which regulators approved financing for a Citigroup takeover of Wachovia. To provide this assistance, the board had to invoke the "systemic risk" exception in the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, and it therefore had to assert that such assistance was necessary for the health of the financial system. Yet days later, Wachovia cut a better deal to sell itself to Wells Fargo, instead of Citi.



So how necessary was the assistance?



That’s exactly what we intend to find out about the federal government’s bailouts. And we’re not only looking at Bear Stearns and Citigroup. We have FOIA requests and lawsuits involving Bank of America, AIG, Lehman Brothers and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Our client, Vern McKinley, sounded the alarm on Fannie and Freddie all the way back in 1997, but no one in Congress was listening.)



So we’re now trillions of dollars into these bailouts and the American people remain completely in the dark as to why they were necessary. Or even if they were necessary.



The Bush and Obama administrations, as to be expected, have been reluctant to shed light on these issues. Still, we have managed to unearth some key government bailout documents.



For example, Judicial Watch forced the release of Treasury Department emails related to the government-brokered acquisition of Wall Street firm Bear Stearns by JP Morgan. According to these documents, JP Morgan officials believed Bear Stearns to be "nearly worthless" just hours before the acquisition deal was announced. Nonetheless, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (NY FRB) supported the deal with $30 billion in funding at the direction of then-Treasury Secretary Henry “Hank” Paulson.



Why did the government believe the collapse of Bear Stearns would cause a “contagion” in the financial markets? And why did Paulson think it necessary to “invest” $30 billion in taxpayer dollars to support the purchase of a “worthless” company? To date, we have no explanation.



In an interview for Judicial Watch’s monthly newsletter, The Verdict, Mr. McKinley said he doesn’t buy the government’s “contagion” theory. He believes government officials were “flying by the seat of their pants” during the financial crisis. They seemingly had little understanding of how investment banks worked, yet they were absolutely certain that there were companies that were “too big to fail.”



The response by the government’s financial agencies to the crisis set into motion a massive expansion of the size and scope of the federal government from which we may never recover. When President Obama took office, he doubled down on the Bush administration’s gamble and now we have a federal government with unprecedented command and control of an economy still in tatters, and virtually no answers from our leaders in government as to how we got here.



Developments in our investigations and litigation are fast-breaking, and I expect to have more for you over the next few weeks.



Judicial Watch Spurs Congressional Ethics Investigation



Is the House Ethics Committee finally on a roll? Fresh off highly publicized congressional ethics investigations involving Democratic Congressmen Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters comes news this week that the Office of Congressional Ethics is now going to probe the House “per diem” scandal.



You will recall that Judicial Watch played a major role in uncovering and publicizing this scandal. And, in fact, on March 31, 2010, JW filed official letters of complaint with the House and Senate Ethics Committees. It appears the House of Representatives has heard our call.



According to CBS MoneyWatch:



Congressional ethics investigators are interviewing at least a half-dozen legislative leaders, who have pocketed travel allowances in an effort to determine whether they have violated ethical guidelines, according to a continuing series of investigative reports in The Wall Street Journal. But the practice of keeping travel allowance payments raises tax questions as well, experts noted Tuesday. Business travel “per diem” allowances must be tracked or taxed — and it appears that legislators may have done neither…



…But an ethics investigation may be the least of these lawmakers’ worries. Thomas Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, says he’s asked for a full accounting of State Department “per diem” funds given to members of Congress. If Congressional leaders did not spend this cash on business — and track those expenses, returning any excess — they’re legally required to report that money as income on their tax returns.



As Judicial Watch argued in its letters of complaint, House ethics rules are crystal clear on the use of congressional per diems:



(1) A member or employee of a committee may not receive or expend local currencies for subsistence in a country for a day at a rate in excess of the maximum per diem set forth in applicable Federal law. (2) A member or employee shall be reimbursed for his expenses for a day at the lesser of — (A) the per diem set forth in applicable Federal law; or (B) the actual, unreimbursed expenses (other than for transportation) he incurred during that day.



Yet, despite these instructions, according to The Wall Street Journal's investigation, members of Congress have been pocketing the leftover cash for personal use. One former member of Congress, Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, said it’s “fairly standard” for members to use the money for personal shopping and, perhaps worse, to buy souvenirs for their “constituents” back home!



So using taxpayer money to buy gifts for constituents (or campaign donors?) is “fairly standard” in Congress? “In the least, there is evidence of a general misunderstanding among lawmakers that unused per diems may be converted for personal use. At worst, members may be illegally pocketing taxpayer funds,” we wrote in our letters of complaint, while reminding both committees that it is a federal criminal offense to convert public money for personal use.



Many will conjecture that this sudden interest in ethics on the Hill just happens to coincide with election season. And there’s no question politics has played a role in the recent rash of congressional ethics investigations. It always does. Rasmussen confirmed once again in July that “government ethics” ranks high on the list of issues of concern to voters. (It’s second, just behind the economy.)



But no matter the reason, some accountability is better than no accountability. And perhaps the genie is out of the bottle. Now that the congressional ethics machine has sputtered to life, perhaps it will prove to be too tough for congressional leaders to shut it down again.



I’d like to thank our supporters again for their generosity — because it provided the resources to actually initiate a complaint process that has resulted in an official investigation and some accountability for corrupt members of Congress.



And I hope you and yours are able to enjoy the Labor Day holiday.



Until next week…





Tom Fitton

President



Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, educational foundation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation’s public life. To make a tax-deductible contribution in support of our efforts