A new case of voter fraud has apparently been discovered in Houston, Texas which has strikingly similarities to Minnesota Majority's findings in its election investigation. The problems were discovered by a citizens group called True The Vote in the process of reviewing voter registrations cards. The case was discussed on a recent episode of the WallBuilders Live radio program in which hosts interviewed Kelly Shackelford of Liberty Institute, the attorney representing True the Vote.

Two Texas activist groups have been implicated in scandal -- Houston Votes and Texans Together Education Fund.  After being confronted with the evidence, the director of Houston Votes acknowledged that dozens of their employees were terminated for turning in alleged fraudulent voter registration applications.

A story in the Cypress Times states the following:

Leo Vaquez, Harris County Assessor-Collector and Voter Registrar, released an August 24, 2010 a report detailing a stunning array of widespread, highly organized voter fraud that, unless stopped immediately, will almost certainly affect the outcome of Harris County races and possibly negate your legal vote.

Mr. Vasquez says, “Unfortunately, it is my duty to share with you today that the integrity of the Voter Roll in Harris County, Texas appears to be under an organized and systematic attack by the group operating under the name ‘Houston Votes’. Houston Votes is the voter registration machine of the ‘Texans Together Education Fund.’ Houston Votes and Texans Together have effectively emerged as our area’s new ACORN organization.”

Vasquez released a 72 page PowerPoint document with incredible detail of the fraud, phony signatures, and even voter registration applications filled out by people who checked the box “Non-Citizen”. The result is that the voter registration office has been flooded with bogus or duplicate registration forms that have tied up staff and cost taxpayers thousands of dollars in wasted time.

UPDATE: Fox News has just done a story on this case.

Did you know that Representative Tim Walz (D, MN-01) has voted with Nancy Pelosi 95% of the time?  You can see a head-to-head comparison of their voting records at OpenCongress.org. 

Walz likes to portray himself as a moderate, but his voting record is more like a radical liberal from San Francisco.  We believe Walz's record demonstrates that he is clearly out-of-step with the majority of people in Minnesota's 1st Congressional district, most of who tend to be right-of-center in their political beliefs.

A new advertising campaign has been launched in Walz's district which poses the question, "Who is the real Tim Walz?"  The campaign is designed to educate Rep. Walz's constituents on his voting record and encourage them to contact the Congressman.  The campaign consists of a newspaper advertisement and electronic billboards in the Rochester area.

We have also set-up a  toll-free line at 877-933-WALZ so that constituents can easily contact Representative Walz in his Washington DC office or one of his local district offices.

TAKE ACTION: Call Tim Walz at 877.933.WALZ and tell him what you think about his voting record. Make a donation to support us in our efforts.

Minnesota Majority's Dan McGrath was interviewed on July 15, 2010 by Jeff Passolt of Fox 9 News.  Passolt challenged Minnesota Majority's report about felons voting in the 2008 election, echoing some of the criticisms being voiced by county prosecutors.  Prosecutors claim that the felon problem is limited to just a handful of cases and that most cases only involve felons registering to vote, not actually voting.  McGrath responded by presenting an Election Day Sign-in Roster with the signature of a felon that Ramsey County prosecutors claim only registered to vote but clearly actually voted.  Minnesota Majority has offered to meet with both Ramsey and Hennepin county prosecutors on numerous occasions to share our evidence, but our offers have been rebuffed each time.  We stand by our claim that hundreds of felons both REGISTERED and VOTED in the 2008 election.

This Fox 9 News investigative report that aired BEFORE the 2008 election should have been a warning signal to Secretary of State Mark Ritchie to conduct his OWN investigation into potential felons on Minnesota voter rolls.  But nearly 2 years later, Secretary Ritchie has failed to acknowledge that felons voted in the 2008 election.  Instead, his response has been that its not his job, referring all complaints to county attorneys.  But according to Minnesota's election laws, the Secretary of State is the state's chief election officer, responsible for the integrity of the voter registration system and our elections, including FLAGGING felons that appear on voter rolls.  Minnesota Majority's investigation has revealed that the vast majority of felon voters we have found were NOT flagged.

On July 13, 2010, Megyn Kelly of Fox News interviewed John Fund of the Wall Street Journal regarding Minnesota Majority's research into felon voters.  Fund says that it was Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie's "dereliction of duties" that allowed these felons to vote in the 2008 election.  Fund also comments on the 2008 election in his most recent column in the Wall Street Journal.

TAKE ACTION: Help us continue our work in protecting the integrity of our elections by making a generous donation.

From the Washington Examiner

In March, the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision struck down campaign finance limits on political expression by individuals working through corporations and unions as a violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. A cry ensued among liberal Democrats predicting doom if they and their special interest allies were required to follow the Constitution. Big Labor's bosses promised to spend millions to protect the Democratic majority if it would speedily pass legislation to circumvent the decision (and thus the Constitution), but restore limits on their corporate foes.

The resulting DISCLOSE Act, according to its backers, will ensure transparency in campaign ad funding. Thursday, the House of Representatives approved the bill 219-206, with 36 Democrats and 170 Republicans in opposition to the measure, which was written by Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the Maryland Democrat who heads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee this year, and New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, who led the Senate Democrats’ campaign panel in 2008.

The bill is full of draconian restrictions on individual political speech expressed via corporations, but gives privileged status to the Democrats' union masters. A provision pushed by Pennsylvania Democrat Rep. Bob Brady, for example, allows unions to transfer unlimited funds among affiliated groups to pay for political ads with no disclosure whatever. That makes campaign funding more transparent?

Then there's the ban on advocacy for or against a candidate by any company that received Troubled Asset Relief Program funds. That silences General Motors' white-collar workers, but not the United Auto Workers union, which, oh by the way, got, among other things, $6.5 billion in preferred GM stock, paying a government-guaranteed 9 percent cash dividend. Could the fact the UAW gave more than $2 million to Democrats in 2008 explain why Democratic leaders pushed a proposal that so blatantly favors the union?

Similarly, DISCLOSE curbs political speech for employees of companies receiving more than $7 million in government contracts. Public sector unions that spend millions of recycled tax dollars electing Democrats have no such restrictions. By thus outlawing business funding for or against candidates, DISCLOSE will encourage more funding for corporate lobbyists and marketers targeting government contracts and earmarks.

As usual, DISCLOSE was rammed through the House after being introduced with only a few hours' notice and too little debate allowed. Because Democrats have abandoned doing a federal budget for the year, couldn't they find a little more time to allow Congress and the people it is supposed to represent to read and discuss this measure at greater length? Next we will see if Senate Democrats are as determined to throw out the First Amendment as were most of their House colleagues.

From the Washington Examiner

The Obama administration has a lot of fights on its hands. Putting aside real wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, there's the battle against leaking oil in the Gulf, the struggle against 9.7 percent unemployment across the country, and clashes over the president's agenda on Capitol Hill. Despite all that, the White House has found time to issue a new declaration of war, this time against an unlikely enemy: the state of Arizona.

The Justice Department is preparing to sue Arizona over its new immigration law. The president has stiffed Gov. Jan Brewer's call for meaningful assistance in efforts to secure the border. And the White House has accused Arizona's junior senator, Republican Jon Kyl, of lying about an Oval Office discussion with the president over comprehensive immigration reform. Put them all together, and you have an ugly state of affairs that's getting uglier by the day.

First, the lawsuit. Last week, Brewer was appalled to learn the Justice Department's intentions not from the Justice Department but from an interview done by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with an Ecuadorian TV outlet. "It would seem to me that if they were going to file suit against us," Brewer told Fox News' Greta van Susteren last week, "they definitely would have contacted us first and informed us before they informed citizens ... of another nation."

But they didn't.

"There certainly seems to be an underlying disrespect for the state of Arizona," says Kris Kobach, the law professor and former Bush administration Justice Department official who helped draft the Arizona law. Kobach points out that during the Bush years, several states openly flouted federal immigration law on issues like sanctuary cities and in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. Respecting the doctrines of comity and federalism, the Bush administration didn't sue. Now, when Arizona passes a measure that is fully consistent with federal law, the Obama administration, says Kobach, "goes sprinting to the courthouse door."

Then there is the matter of the White House's assistance, or nonassistance, in Arizona's border-security efforts. On June 3, the president, under criticism for refusing to meet or even talk to Brewer, reluctantly granted her an audience in the Oval Office. After the meeting, Brewer told reporters Obama pledged that administration officials would come to Arizona within two weeks with details of plans to secure the border.

June 17 marked two weeks, and there were no administration officials and no plans. There still aren't. "What a disappointment," Brewer told van Susteren. "You know, when you hear from the president of the United States and he gives you a commitment, you would think that they would stand up and stand by their word. It is totally disappointing."

And now, there's the Kyl controversy. On June 18, Kyl told a town meeting in North Phoenix that Obama personally told him the administration will not secure the U.S.-Mexico border because doing so would make it politically difficult to pass comprehensive immigration reform. "I met with the president in the Oval Office, just the two of us," Kyl said. "Here's what the president said. The problem is, he said, if we secure the border, then you all won't have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform."

"In other words," Kyl continued, "they're holding it hostage. They don't want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with comprehensive immigration reform."

After Kyl's statement went viral on the Internet, the White House issued a sharp denial. "The president didn't say that and Senator Kyl knows it," communications director Dan Pfeiffer wrote on the White House blog. "There are more resources dedicated toward border security today than ever before, but, as the president has made clear, truly securing the border will require a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system."

Kyl is not backing down. "What I said occurred, did occur," he told an Arizona radio station. "Some spokesman down at the White House said no, that isn't what happened at all, and then proceeded to say we need comprehensive immigration reform to secure the border. That is their position, and all I was doing was explaining why, from a conversation with the president, why it appears that that's their position."

Even if it didn't have so many other fights on its hands, it would be unusual for an administration to align itself against an American state. But that's precisely what has happened. Soon it will be up to the courts and voters to decide whether Obama's campaign against Arizona will succeed or fail.

TAKE ACTION: Sign our Immigration Enforcement Petition demanding lawmakers get tough on illegal aliens.

From NumbersUSA

Several Senators have learned of a possible plan by the Obama Administration that would provide a mass Amnesty for the nation's 11-18 million illegal aliens. Led by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), eight Senators addressed a letter to the President asking for answers to questions about a plan that would allow DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano to provide an amnesty if they can't secure enough votes for a bill in the Senate.

The letter that was sent to Pres. Obama earlier today asks the President for clarification on the use of deferred action or parole for illegal aliens. The executive actions are typically used in special cases and are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but if 60 votes can't be secured in the Senate to pass a mass Amnesty, the Administration may use the discretionary actions as an alternative.

Here is the text of the letter signed by Sens. Grassley, Hatch (R-Utah), Vitter (R-La.), Bunning (R-Ky.), Chambliss (R-Ga.), Isakson (R-Ga.), Inhofe (R-Okla.), and Cochran (R-Miss.).

Dear President Obama:

We understand that there’s a push for your Administration to develop a plan to unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens in the United States. We understand that the Administration may include aliens who have willfully overstayed their visas or filed for benefits knowing that they will not be eligible for a status for years to come. We understand that deferred action and parole are discretionary actions reserved for individual cases that present unusual, emergent or humanitarian circumstances. Deferred action and parole were not intended to be used to confer a status or offer protection to large groups of illegal aliens, even if the agency claims that they look at each case on a “case-by-case” basis.

While we agree our immigration laws need to be fixed, we are deeply concerned about the potential expansion of deferred action or parole for a large illegal alien population. While deferred action and parole are Executive Branch authorities, they should not be used to circumvent Congress’ constitutional authority to legislate immigration policy, particularly as it relates to the illegal population in the United States.

The Administration would be wise to abandon any plans for deferred action or parole for the illegal population. Such a move would further erode the American public’s confidence in the federal government and its commitment to securing the borders and enforcing the laws already on the books.

We would appreciate receiving a commitment that the Administration has no plans to use either authority to change the current position of a large group of illegal aliens already in the United States, and ask that you respond to us about this matter as soon as possible. 

TAKE ACTION: Send a FREE FAX to President Obama expressing your Outrage at the Administration's plans to provide an amnesty for illegal aliens through Executive Order.

In this taxpayer-funded public service announcement, Obama's Labor Chief Hilda Solis claims that illegal aliens have a right to protection for fair wages under federal law. But the truth is that federal law only pertains to United States citizens.

TAKE ACTION: Sign our Immigration Enforcement Petition demanding lawmakers get tough on illegal aliens.

From Politico

After enjoying a brief reprieve from the barrage of criticism over his response to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, President Barack Obama was dealt a significant blow Tuesday that may refresh perceptions that his administration’s handling of the crisis has been improvised and haphazard.

A federal judge in New Orleans blocked Obama’s six-month moratorium on new deep-water offshore oil drilling and mocked the decision to impose it as sloppy and illogical.

White House officials said they planned to appeal the ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman. The judge’s ruling went into effect immediately.

“We will immediately appeal to the Fifth Circuit,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said. “The president strongly believes ... that continuing to drill at these depths without knowing what happened is — does not make any sense and puts the safety of those involved, potentially puts the safety of those on the rigs and safety of the environment in the Gulf at a danger that the president does not believe we can afford right now.”
Also, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced Tuesday night that he would issue a new order imposing a moratorium that contains additional information on why the drilling delay is needed.

In a withering 22-page opinion, Feldman painted an unflattering picture of the process that led to the moratorium. He faulted the administration for a “misleading” and “factually inaccurate” assertion that seven experts from the National Academy of Engineering endorsed a report supporting Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s call for a six-month moratorium on drilling from floating rigs. In fact, five of the seven do not back such a move.

Feldman, a Ronald Reagan appointee, dismissed the government’s explanation of the discrepancies as “hairsplitting.” He also said the evidence the government cited to back the moratorium was shaky, and in some instances “incomprehensible,” as a justification for the administration’s ban on all new drilling in water more than 500 feet deep.

“The court is unable to divine or fathom a relationship between the findings and the immense scope of the moratorium,” Feldman wrote. “If some drilling equipment parts are flawed, is it rational to say all are? Are all airplanes a danger because one was? All oil tankers [are] like Exxon Valdez? All trains? All mines? That sort of thinking seems heavy-handed and rather overbearing.”


Environmental groups complained Tuesday that Feldman’s decision didn’t give enough weight to the devastating environmental impact a second spill could have.

“We know the potential damage. We don’t know the real risk,” said David Pettit of the Natural Resources Defense Council, which entered the case to support the moratorium. “You need to know what the risk is. ... What the judge said is that you can take that risk now without knowing what it is. That’s what I disagree with.”

A lawyer who litigates cases for environmental and wildlife groups, Eric Glitzenstein, said the judge was applying too strict a standard to Obama’s action.

“Agencies are supposed to get pretty wide latitude on issues of scientific and technical concern. Especially in the case of an unprecedented and unmitigated disaster, you’d think the government would have a pretty wide berth,” he said. “It’s not like the government said we’re never going to do deep-water drilling again.”

Gulf Coast lawmakers who had been pressing Obama to lift the moratorium quickly praised the court’s decision. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) promised to try to persuade the administration not to appeal the ruling so that the 33 deep-water drilling rigs affected could go back into operation.

“There are 33 deep-water exploration rigs in the Gulf. We don’t think it takes six months or a year to fly SWAT teams onto these rigs to do some ... 24-hour or 48-hour analysis of the type of drilling operation they’re doing,” she told reporters in a conference call Tuesday. “Have some urgency about this. Keep high standards, but lay a path forward. Don’t just put up a brick wall.”

It also emerged Tuesday that Feldman had holdings in some oil drilling stocks as of 2008, including major firm Transocean. Judges ordinarily recuse themselves when they have financial interests that could be affected by the outcome of a case. A message left at Feldman’s chambers Tuesday afternoon was not immediately returned.