Funny , she doesn’t look a day over 103 .
” A single Bronx voter listed in official records as being 164 years old led Board of Elections officials to review their files — where they turned up another 849 New Yorkers who were supposedly alive when Abe Lincoln was president.
The stunning discovery came after The Post reported last week that the birth date of Luz Pabellon, a spry 73-year-old who has been living and voting in The Bronx since the 1970s, was recorded as Jan. 1, 1850.
This week, a search of the records in all five boroughs found 849 more voters with the same wacky birth date.
Board officials chalked up the implausible age snafu to previous practices that allowed residents not to provide their exact birthdays when registering to vote.
Some of the new voters — mostly women — simply wrote that they were “21+” — above the legal voting age.
There was a reason to be vague. Voter registration records are open to the public, so anyone with the inclination can discover the real age of anyone in the files.
“ It’s a leftover vestige from a bygone era,” explained Board of Elections executive director Mike Ryan.
“ They were all listed as age 164. This was no accident. It’s a little quirk in the system. It’s not widespread,” he added, noting there are more than 4 million registered voters. “
” A federal judge last week upheld the right of states to require proof of citizenship before allowing someone to register to vote. Voters continue to overwhelmingly support such a requirement.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 78% of Likely U.S. Voters believe everyone should be required to prove his or her citizenship before being allowed to register to vote. That’s up from 71% a year ago. Just 19% oppose that requirement. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Twenty-nine percent (29%) believe laws that require proof of citizenship before allowing voter registration discriminate against such voters. But more than twice as many (61%) say such laws do not discriminate, up three points from 58% who felt that way in March of last year. Ten percent (10%) are undecided.
Opponents of proof-of-citizenship laws claim they are intended to keep eligible voters from voting, while supporters say instead that they are intended to keep ineligible voters from casting votes. Thirty-four percent (34%) think it is more common that people are prevented from voting who should be allowed to vote. Half (50%) of voters disagree and think that more often people are allowed to vote who are not eligible to vote. Seventeen percent (17%) are not sure.
This marks a six-point increase from last year in the number of voters who think it is more common for people to be allowed to vote who are not eligible. It’s also the highest level of doubt about the voting process in surveys since January 2008. “
Read the whole poll at Rasmussen
” Nearly 73 percent of likely voters say they agree that state and local voter ID laws that require voters to provide proof of lawful registration are a good idea, and Mitt Romney and the Republican Party have an advantage over Democrats on the issue.
The results are from a new poll
conducted for WND by the public-
opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies . It was taken Sept. 7-11 and carries a margin of error of plus or minus 2.99 percentage
“The voter ID debate has raged from sea to shining sea, casting the nation into the question of -should folks have to prove that they are who they say they are when they go to the booth? The democrat platform dictates that it’s none of the state’s business to confirm the identities of those who are engaged in state business. Why? Because that’s so racist …and poor folks won’t be able to vote. (Which is obviously the illogical fallacy of a false consequence.)
Nevertheless, to join the festivities at the DNC, attenders must have ID. In a direct quote from the DNC website:”
Charles Krauthammer :
“But Verrilli never had a chance. This was never a serious legal challenge in the first place. It was confected (and timed) purely for political effect, to highlight immigration as a campaign issue with which to portray Republicans as anti-Hispanic.
Hispanics are just the beginning, however. The entire Obama campaign is a slice-and-dice operation, pandering to one group after another, particularly those that elected Obama in 2008 — blacks, Hispanics, women, young people — and for whom the thrill is now gone.”
He really is desperate . Krauthammer continues :
“What to do? Try fear. Create division, stir resentment, by whatever means necessary — bogus court challenges, dead-end Senate bills, and a forest of straw men.”
What a bill of goods the bootlickers foisted on us . This is what we get when half the country lives on government largesse .
The notion that the Federal Government stands for justice and fairness for all is absurd . Through bureaucratic appointments and administrative law the entire apparatus has been turned into our worst enemy . It is time to remind them who works for whom .
“The contempt that DOJ Civil Rights Division employees have for southerners manifests in public policy — whether skepticism toward legislative motives in enacting voter ID, or, as I
experienced firsthand, unwillingness to protect
whites in Mississippi who were the victims of racial discrimination by black officials.
If states make the mistake of submitting election changes opposed by the NAACP, such as voter ID, to Gyamfi, these DOJ employees will hunt for evidence that racial bias motivated the change. And they will see racial bias where few do. The biases of the DOJ employees toward southerners, like the one shown in the Facebook
posting, will manifest in concrete DOJ decisions..The biases, for example, will view election
integrity measures to instead be a sinister scheme to return to Jim Crow.
As former Democratic Congressman Artur Davis
said this past weekend at the True the Vote summit, “a driver’s license is not a billy club. A photo ID is not a fire hose.”