SAY IT AIN'T SO: DEMOCRATIC VOTER FRAUD

Ed Rendell is in a tight reelction campaign against Pittsburgh Steeler great and Pro Football Hall of Famer Lynn Swann. He’s got reason to be worried. Actually, he’s got lots of reasons to be worried and Swann is most of those reasons. What he’s got going for him is what Opinionjournal.com’s John Fund calls “A Rich History of Corruption”.

Democrats claim anything that impedes or discourages someone from voting is a violation of the Voting Rights Act. Republicans insist the state’s rancid history of voter fraud requires preventive measures. The conflict of visions, to borrow Thomas Sowell’s phrase, couldn’t be more complete.
Take the bill the GOP-controlled Legislature passed, which would require voters show a form of official ID or a utility bill; another bill would end Philadelphia’s bizarre practice of locating over 900 polling places in private venues, including bars, abandoned buildings and even the office of a local state senator. City officials admit their voter rolls are stuffed with phantoms. The city has about as many registered voters as it has adults, and is thus a rich breeding ground for fraud.
But Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell vetoed both bills last month, saying that in a time of voter apathy “the government should be doing everything it can to encourage greater participation.”

The fact that there’s “phantoms” on the voter rolls should cause honorable people to actively clean up the situtation. As we can see, Rendell isn’t in a hurry to clean anything up, especially when he’s in a tight race. It seems that the most consistent voting block for Democrats aren’t blacks. That might surprise you but it’s actually phantoms. I’d doubt that any exit polling data exists on this but I wouldn’t be surprised if 100 percent of all phantom voters voted Democratic, especially in Philadelphia.

In 1998, Austin Murphy, a former Democratic congressman, pleaded guilty to fraudulently voting absentee ballots for nursing-home residents near Pittsburgh.
But Mr. Rendell’s history doesn’t inspire confidence that he takes fraud of any kind seriously. In 1994, Philadelphia Democrat Bill Stinson was booted from office as a state senator by a federal judge who found his campaign had rounded up 250 tainted absentee ballots. Mr. Rendell, then Philadelphia’s mayor, had this reaction to the Stinson scandal: “I don’t think it’s anything that’s immoral or grievous, but it clearly violates the election code.”

In one sentence, Rendell argues that requiring a picture ID would disenfranchise elderly and minority voters. In the next, he’s saying that violating “the election code” isn’t immoral, just illegal. I wonder how many Pennsylvanians would agree with Mr. Rendell’s opinion on the persistent voting fraud perpetrated by sleazy politicians like Rendell.

The truth, the ugly truth, is that Rendell’s worried that Swann will beat him if it’s a fair election. And we all know that a politician’s most developed instinct is political survival.

The only hope we have of cleaning up the electoral system is to have honorable politicians who believe in winning elections by the rules. Clearly, that description doesn’t fit Mr. Rendell. That’s just one great reason for Pennsylvanians to run Rendell’s corruption machine out of office.

Still, many liberals insist fraud isn’t an issue in Pennsylvania. “Show us the fraud,” said Elizabeth Milner, chairman of the state’s League of Women Voters, urging a veto of voter ID. Well, Donna Hope of Philadelphia can show her, because in 2004 an organizer for Voting is Power, an offshoot of the Muslim American Society, registered her to vote despite her admission that she was a noncitizen. Although she was turned away from the polls for that reason that November, someone eventually voted in her name.

Only a corrupt person could look at that proof and deny the existence of a problem. Only someone who believes that the ends justifies the means could tolerate that type of voter fraud.

I hope the RNC runs ads citing Democratic voter fraud convictions from across the country. It’s time we put the Democratic corruption machine on alert. This isn’t Kuchma’s Ukraine. This isn’t Chavez’s Venezuela. The American people deserve better than that.

Technorati Tags: Rendell, Swann, Santorum, Democratic Voter Fraud, John Fund

DO SOMETHING: INDECISION ON IMMIGRATION

A dear friend who is now deceased often told me that big problems are just little problems that were neglected when they were small. Never was a truer word spoken in regards to the current immigration imbroglio.

Congress has again put off making any decision on this heads-you-lose-tails-nobody-wins proposition. Neither party wants to touch this political hot potato, because there is a voting block to lose in the process of making one false move. But one thing is abundantly clear: conservatives can’t win this issue trying to imitate the positions of liberals.

My suggestion is quite simple. Begin by doing something, rather than waiting until all the minutiae of the bill can be hammered out before proceeding. If the primary reason for cracking down on illegals is about security, then that is where the process ought to start.

In order to accomplish that objective, we must either construct a barrier between the U.S. and Mexico, or place enough law enforcement along the borders to make “getting in,” as hard escaping from Alcatraz once was. You may not realistically be able to deport tens on millions of people, but you have to first stop any more from entering in.

There seems to be a major push for granting a quasi-amnesty for the illegal aliens in this country, in some cases depending on how long they have been here. But how can you accurately determine that?

The Roman Catholic Church has been among the greatest facilitators in this matter. David Zubic, the bishop of the Green Bay diocese impugned those who would be unwilling to accept illegal immigration with outstretched arms. He compared illegal immigrants to Joseph, Mary and baby Jesus needing to flee to Egypt for asylum from the purges of Herodian infanticide. On a local conservative radio program, The Jerry Bader Show, Zubic’s statements were roundly condemned by those of his own flock. Some pointed to his poor exegesis of scripture, others suggested that his meddling came close to a First Amendment infraction.

For my own part, I don’t think it is wise to muzzle the church on the basis of “church and state separation,” as that is already overdone. Much of that has to do with a federal statute passed in 1954, after certain churches put out newspaper adds opposing Senator Lyndon Johnson. On the other hand, the chief problem is a misunderstanding by Zubic, regarding the issue of biblical jurisdiction, between the civil and ecclesiastical spheres.

The role of the church is to provide help to those in need, and there is no international boundary on that mission. Christians should help people less fortunate though voluntary work and donations. However the church should not circumvent existing immigration laws, or deliberately promote illegal immigration. It is easy to have mixed feelings as one contemplates the biblical demand to aid the sojourner and alien. But when does the “flight of refugees” become an invasion that threatens the country’s future, security and stability? Any thoughts of fairness in terms of reciprocity would be quickly dispelled by viewing Mexico’s formal immigration policy laws.

We often hear the “anti-imperialists” ask if everyone has to be just like us. Well, as a matter of fact, they don’t. But for all America’s shortcomings, we see the tragedy that occurs because many countries aren’t a little more like us in economic prowess and opportunity. If we are going to export anything, it ought to be our system of government and ethic of liberty.

How many people can a life boat hold before it sinks or capsizes and all inhabitants perish? While many illegals contribute to the American economy, others put a fatal stranglehold on the resources of our social safety net. This is not compassion for naturalized citizens who are then deprived. The last time I saw my older brother before he died, he asked me why this country gives away so much to aliens, while denying the same help to its citizens. He had a small nest egg which he had to spend down before getting medical assistance. Of course, in his case it would still have been welfare, but he did have a point about priorities.

The problem should also be approached from the demand side. We must penalize businesses that refuse to stop the hiring of illegals. Either give those with a good criminal and employment record an opportunity to legitimize their status, or go home. If you don’t give them the carrot, then they won’t come. If all the illegals were naturalized by a swift act of a fiat, the next wave of protests would be about substandard wages and poor working conditions.

When I was taking a composition class in college, my instructor passed around an example of a good essay done by a previous student. Unfortunately, I didn’t give enough attention to the grammatical structure. I did, however, pay close attention to the subject matter of the essay. This individual had visited Haiti, and was critical of how the U.S. had dealt with the problems there. His opening line was “Give a man a fish and he will eat today. Teach him to fish and he has food for a lifetime.” We need to approach our immigration problem with the same philosophy.

It is time to teach other countries how to fish. Hopefully they are willing to be taught.

Robert E. Meyer is a Staff Writer for The New Media Alliance. Columns by this author can be read regularly on TheRealityCheck.org.

WHERE IS BILAL HUSSEIN

By Michelle Malkin

Where is Bilal Hussein--and who is he working for?

A year ago, I blogged about a controversial, Pulitzer Prize-winning photo taken by an unidentified Associated Press stringer in Iraq. More background from the blogosphere here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Do take the time to re-read them all. The context is important.

One member of the Pulitzer-winning AP team was AP stringer Bilal Hussein. Hussein's photos have raised serious, persistent questions about his relationship with terrorists in Iraq and whether his photos were/are staged in collusion with the enemy. I've learned of an intriguing news development that strengthens those lingering suspicions.

This afternoon, in response to a tip from an anonymous military source in Iraq, I contacted both the AP reporter embedded with the Marines in Ramadi, Todd Pitman, as well as AP's media relations office headquartered in New York concerning Hussein's whereabouts. No word from Pitman. But at 6:20pm EDT, I received the following e-mail response from AP:

We are looking into reports that Mr. Hussein was detained by the U.S. military in Iraq but have no further details at this time.

Jack Stokes
The Associated Press
Corporate Communications

According to my tipster, Hussein was captured earlier today by American forces in a building in Ramadi, Iraq, with a cache of weapons.

I am still awaiting a response from the DOD's Combined Press Information Center and a Public Affairs Officer in Ramadi.

While we wait (and remember that the AP has a history of dragging its feet), a quick refresher on the Pulitzer Prize-winning photo controversy and Hussein's work:

Pulitzer Prize-winning photo by unidentified "AP stringer".

The above image of an execution of Iraqi election workers, in broad daylight, on Haifa Street in Baghdad was taken in November 2004. D. Gorton, a former New York Times White House photographer who covered the Carter and Reagan administrations, provided an excellent summary and analysis of the controversy surrounding the photo at The Weekly Standard. Gorton concluded:

So this is where the story stands now: A photo "stringer" who is identified as an Iraqi national, who remains anonymous, makes an exclusive picture that is not corroborated by any other photographic news source. The image fits into a press meta narrative about the situation in Iraq prior to crucial national elections. The published photo sets up an immediate outcry in the blogosphere and is met by an institutional defense by the AP. That is followed by a series of misstatements by the AP on the distance the photographer was from the scene, culminating in a piece by AP's director of photography, who avoids addressing that very issue of proximity.

Whatever the truth is, it may eventually come out. The terrorists know whether or not they were complicit with the photographer. As the insurgency winds down they may broker their way into an amnesty in which, no doubt, many tales will emerge--tales that could confirm the worst suspicions of complicity in murder.

In the meantime the AP is left with almost no reasonable defense of the photographer's actions, uncorroborated as they are. They can release all of the photographer's pictures of that day. They can even produce the photographer. But it's difficult to see what they could do to assure their integrity in this matter.

AP director of media relations Jack Stokes defended the photographer against questions about staging this way: "Insurgents want their stories told as much as other people and some are willing to let Iraqi photographers take their pictures."

As it happens, AP stringer Hussein has been a prolific photographic story-teller for the "insurgents:"

A typical example of photography from the "insurgents'" perspective by Bilal Hussein/AP

And another up-close-and-personal snapshot of a day in the life of the "insurgents:"

AP/Bilal Hussein

Many more graphic photos of Hussein's work here, including this chilling photo in the middle of the Ramadi desert taken by Hussein as triumphant terrorists posed with the body of just-executed hostage Italian national Salvatore Santoro on Dec. 15, 2004:

Insurgent propaganda photo by AP/Bilal Hussein

It's clear the photographer wasn't fearful at all for his own life. The Yahoo! archive of Hussein's photos for AP is here. And plenty more here.

In November 2004, AP published a glowing profile of Bilal Hussein that was--surprise--critical of the American forces' assault on Fallujah.

Rusty at The Jawa Report (hat tip - OTB) updated the "continuing saga of insurgent propaganda" earlier this week and pointed to an excellent investigation of phony MSM war photography published by the National Journal's Neil Munro, who featured Bilal Hussein's questionable work prominently:

Thanks to digital technology, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the most photographed in history. Photographers with digital cameras have provided, almost instantaneously, an enormous flood of accurate, dramatic, and even shocking images to people around the world. But the daily downloads of news photos include some that are staged, fake, or so lacking in context as to be meaningless, despite the Western media's best efforts to separate the factual from the fictional....

The photo editors for Time and The New York Times' Web site declined to comment. Other publications printed images of damage from the missile strike that seem entirely accurate. For example, Newsweek and The Washington Times published wide-angle photos of locals standing beside houses that had obviously been severely damaged. The New York Times print edition published the same wide-angle photo on January 18.....

The problem sharpens when no Western reporter is on the scene, but a photographer, usually an Iraqi stringer, is. Photo editors, or even local Western bureau chiefs, have trouble judging the veracity of the images that come from such an event. Last October, for example, The Washington Post printed a striking image of four caskets, purportedly containing dead women and children, and a line of mourning men on a flat desert plain outside the town of Ramadi, west of Baghdad. The photo, provided by the Associated Press, accompanied an article that began this way:

"A U.S. fighter jet bombed a crowd gathered around a burned Humvee on the edge of a provincial capital in western Iraq, killing 25 people, including 18 children, hospital officials and family members said Monday. The military said the Sunday raid targeted insurgents planting a bomb for new attacks.

"In all, residents and hospital workers said, 39 civilians and at least 13 armed insurgents were killed in a day of U.S. airstrikes in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, a Sunni Arab region with a heavy insurgent presence.

"The U.S. military said it killed a total of 70 insurgents in Sunday's airstrikes and, in a statement, said it knew of no civilian deaths." ....

The funeral photograph was taken by Bilal Hussein, an Iraqi stringer working for the Associated Press. AP officials declined to make Hussein available for an interview, and National Journal was unable to contact him directly in Iraq....

A series of Hussein's photographs illustrate another dilemma for photo editors -- whether to publish images that may have been created for the photographer. Last September 17, in Ramadi, Hussein took pictures after a battle at a dusty intersection. At least one U.S. armored vehicle had been damaged and towed away, leaving behind its 40-foot dull-gray metal track tread. Hussein's photographs showed the locals piling debris and auto tires onto the tread, and then celebrating as they lit a fire. Without the fire, smoke, and added debris, the photo would have presented a pretty uninteresting image of people looking at a leftover tank tread. With the smoke, fire, and debris, the image seemed to convey that a major battle had just taken place.

Weeks later, USA Today published a similar Hussein photograph from a different incident in Ramadi, which featured celebrating Sunnis, burning car tires, and a tank tread pulled over on its side.

Lyon said that AP bars photographers from asking people to change a scene, but that a crowd's spontaneous decision to change a scene in front of a cameraman presents a different situation. "You have this [dilemma] every day all around the world," he said. "There's nothing new there."

Well, here's something new: As I noted earlier tonight, Bill Roggio's investigation of a possible faked insurgent information operation in Ramadi published today warrants a response from AP. Roggio's report caught my eye especially when I saw one of the photos he posted...

Guess who I discovered took the picture?

You guessed it: AP stringer Bilal Hussein (scroll down on right-hand side).

So where is Bilal Hussein now?

And if he has in fact been detained by our troops, what exactly was he doing when he was taken into custody?

Working for the AP? Or someone else?

Stay tuned...