https://twitter.com/#!/JamesOKeefeIII/status/199249899806670849
https://twitter.com/#!/JamesOKeefeIII/status/199250017494634497
https://twitter.com/#!/JamesOKeefeIII/status/199250214438178816
A video posted the day after the [2012] New Hampshire Primary from conservative gonzo James O’Keefe either exposes why voting laws are too lax or comes close to itself being voter fraud (or both), by obtaining the ballots of dead Granite Staters on primary day.
The video has already sparked an investigation in the New Hampshire State Attorney General’s office, both because of the weaknesses of the electoral system it seems to demonstrate and the potential legal violations those making the film might have committed, according to N.H. Associate Attorney General Richard Head.
Poll workers in the video offer up ballots without requesting identification from off-camera operatives. Members of O’Keefe’s Project Veritas give names that the video alleges belong to deceased New Hampshire voters and receive ballots, even when they report that they forgot their IDs in the car. It would be considered voter fraud were any of them to vote under these names, but none of them do – at least on camera.
When one woman hears that the man she is attempting to give a ballot is dead and is asked if she might have any other deceased residents on her list, she laughs and asks, “How would I know if they were dead or not?”
Recommended
Here is the video:
In response to the video, New Hampshire enacted a voter ID law in March:
The New Hampshire state Senate passed a bill requiring residents to show identification before voting after a well-publicized video showed how easy it is to obtain a ballot in the name of a dead person in the state.
The Union-Leader reports that the legislation passed on Wednesday and now heads to the House.
Conservative filmmaker James O’Keefe produced the bombshell video earlier this year.
Voters in the Granite State are not currently required to present identification to vote.
O’Keefe may not have much luck with Eric Holder. Earlier this year, he also exposed how easy it was to get a ballot in Eric Holder’s name. Eric Holder’s response? He dismissed it as “manufactured.” Of course; if it doesn’t suit the Left’s narrative, then one must not let pesky facts stand in the way. Those who expose the facts don’t suit either and must be punished.
If O’Keefe had exposed fraud in, say, the Diebold machines or if he exposed corporate malfeasance, he’d be lauded by the Left and given a Pulitzer. But since he exposed fraud that damages the Left and their false narratives, he must be punished, perhaps even imprisoned, instead.
But, hey, guess the facts would make it harder for dead people to vote in Chicago. And New Hampshire.
Update: James O’Keefe and his work can be supported by visiting his website and making a donation.
Powerline weighs in:
It is an article of faith on the Left that there is no evidence of significant voter fraud. This is false; here in Minnesota, to name just one state, investigators have uncovered a large number of incidents of fraud. But a larger point also needs to be made: to the extent that not a lot of ballots are proved to be fraudulent, why is that? Obviously, when no effort is made to enforce the law, not many lawbreakers will be caught. That is basically what is going on today. Lax laws make fraud easy. Given that in Democrat-controlled states there is no effort to monitor ballot integrity, how would perpetrators ever be caught?
Read the whole thing.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member