Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

North Carolina Registers Over 583 Democrat Votes Over the Age of 112
Charlotte Conservative Examiner ^ | 21 October, 2012 | Barry Secrest

Posted on 08/16/2013 9:29:50 AM PDT by marktwain

There are obviously verifiable vote fraud problems in North Carolina.

In 2010 those problems surfaced meaningfully as indicated in the below voter fraud post from an earlier Charlotte Conservative Examiner article:

Perhaps in an effort to promote North Carolina as one of the healthiest States in the Nation, this latest voter twist comes to us from Susan Myrick of the Civitas Institute in North Carolina--not to be confused with Rep. Sue Myrick of NC who is unrelated. In a radio interview with local WBT Anchor Tara Servatious, Susan reports that she has been keeping track of the number of votes in North Carolina of individuals over the age of 110 years and apparently we have quite a few, over 410 of the 110 year olds--to be exact-- actually voted via absentee ballot on October the 28th. Yes indeed, now it would appear that good ole NC has the market cornered on the Centenarian vote.

At latest count, Susan has garnered a total Absentee Ballot vote of over 2,660 people over the age of 110. Someone contact the Guiness Book and warm up the Ford, the Fountain of Youth exists and its right here in lovely NC. It's no wonder people are moving here in droves--maybe the use of tobacco isn't such a bad thing after all? But, on a more serious note, with all of the irregularities going on all over the place, we can now begin to wonder about a few things.

Apparently those ultra-healthy seniors over 110 have aged and are now astoundingly over 112 years old, and are still able to make it to the polls ahead of time.

(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: North Carolina
KEYWORDS: coincidence; democrats; election; fraud; nc; politics; voter; voting
While this story is a year old, I did not find it posted. And the "progressives" have the gall to say that election fraud is non-existant.
1 posted on 08/16/2013 9:29:50 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“North Carolina Registers Over 583 Democrat Votes Over the Age of 112”

Is that in human, or dog years?


2 posted on 08/16/2013 9:32:52 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Meanwhile a couple days ago Juan Williams on Special Report said there is absolutely no proof of Democrat fraud...


3 posted on 08/16/2013 9:33:05 AM PDT by gov_bean_ counter (Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Nothing to see here. Like the NSA snooping- just a few typos on numbers.

Move along now.


4 posted on 08/16/2013 9:33:24 AM PDT by TurboZamboni (Marx smelled bad & lived with his parents most his life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Death is no barrier to rat voting. Why would age matter?


5 posted on 08/16/2013 9:34:02 AM PDT by TurboZamboni (Marx smelled bad & lived with his parents most his life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

The Democrat conclusion: Voter ID is intended to make it illegal for old people to vote.


6 posted on 08/16/2013 9:34:16 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (21st century. I'm not a fan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

I’m moving to Raleigh and registering Democrat.
I’ll live forever.


7 posted on 08/16/2013 9:35:17 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Election fraud “doesn’t exist” because the Republican Party is not allowed investigate per a consent decree from lawsuit.

http://tomohalloran.com/2013/02/18/why-the-gop-wont-challenge-vote-fraud/


8 posted on 08/16/2013 9:35:54 AM PDT by Little Ray (How did I end up in this hand-basket, and why is it getting so hot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

This made the rounds a while back. Voters who registered prior to 1960 didn’t have to provide a proof of age, only swear that they were of legal age, and when an actual birthdate became required, the computer system automatically put everyone who didn’t have a date as being born on January 1, 1900.


9 posted on 08/16/2013 9:35:55 AM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

I remember reading this along with many other outrageous articles about voter fraud before the election but nothing was done about it.


10 posted on 08/16/2013 9:37:39 AM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog
A quote from yesterday:
100,000 people want to live in these space habitats on Mars — for eternity.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3055039/posts

11 posted on 08/16/2013 9:38:11 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (21st century. I'm not a fan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604
but nothing was done about it.

Think about the election of 2000. Bush almost had Florida taken away from him. Gore claimed that the election was a fraud. Both parties were REALLY, REALLY upset about the whole thing.

And no one had any real interest in fixing the problem and making sure that the other party couldn't pull such a dirty trick again.

The parties like it dirty and muddy. No one wants to fix this.

12 posted on 08/16/2013 9:41:04 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (21st century. I'm not a fan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
“North Carolina Registers Over 583 Democrat Votes Over the Age of 112”

Has anyone asked the Federal Elections Commission or the Attorney General to investigate?

13 posted on 08/16/2013 9:42:31 AM PDT by oldbrowser (We have a rogue government in Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
While this story is a year old, I did not find it posted. And the "progressives" have the gall to say that election fraud is non-existant.

The biggest smarmy loudmouth on TV is Alan Colmes. He talks fast, shouts, monopolized the conversation, and NEVER documents the "facts" he spews non-stop. His favorite line...

"Name one case of charge, arrest and prosecution of voter fraud! It is not a problem!"

Perhaps a database of these stories exists somewhere, and I would love to hear about it.
Bill O'Reilly's crackerjack research team seems unable ever to have a compilation at hand...

14 posted on 08/16/2013 9:43:12 AM PDT by publius911 (Look for the Union label, then buy something else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
Election fraud “doesn’t exist” because the Republican Party is not allowed investigate per a consent decree from lawsuit.

Another reason why the stupid party no longer has a reason to exist. Its replacement would no longer be bound by this insane agreement from 31 years ago.

15 posted on 08/16/2013 9:45:17 AM PDT by Menehune56 ("Let them hate so long as they fear" (Oderint Dum Metuant), Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Other than some citizens wanting to fix it you’re probably right.


16 posted on 08/16/2013 9:45:48 AM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

maybe its just one old D voting 583 times?


17 posted on 08/16/2013 9:48:37 AM PDT by faithhopecharity (E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog
I’m moving to Raleigh and registering Democrat. I’ll live forever.

Nah, but your vote will!

18 posted on 08/16/2013 11:34:35 AM PDT by SES1066 (Government governs best when it governs least!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: faithhopecharity
maybe its just one old D voting 583 times?

Using various spellings of Barack Barry Steve Hussein Dunham Obama Soretoro.

19 posted on 08/16/2013 11:36:44 AM PDT by bgill (This reply was mined before it was posted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter

He’s right...there’s no proof BECAUSE HE WON’T LOOK FOR IT!

Proof IS all around but folk like JW don’t want to know...If it was Tea Party related, tho, you would have every MSM journo wanna be crawling thru azzes to get at the “troof”.


20 posted on 08/16/2013 11:39:34 AM PDT by Adder (No, Mr. Franklin, we could NOT keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
This made the rounds a while back. Voters who registered prior to 1960 didn’t have to provide a proof of age, only swear that they were of legal age, and when an actual birthdate became required, the computer system automatically put everyone who didn’t have a date as being born on January 1, 1900.

OK, that would translate out to a minimum of 21yo as of 12/31/1959 and assuming all of these 583 Democrats were just exactly 21 on that date, we would be looking at 21+53 or minimum ages for these undocumented voters of 74, not an unusual age in today's USofA. I'd love to ask any of these people as they came up to vote, how old they really were just to see if this was a proxy vote, but of course since Democrats never cheat, what would be the point?

On the other hand, are there any Republicans that fall into this undocumented category? If I recall correctly, unlike many other parts of the "yellow dog" South, Republicans could register relatively normally in many places in NC during those years. So are there any Republican 110-112 year olds?

21 posted on 08/16/2013 11:47:56 AM PDT by SES1066 (Government governs best when it governs least!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

But but but Hillary JUST told us voter fraud charges are baseless. Now HOW can this be? She won’t lie, right Uncle Democrat?


22 posted on 08/16/2013 12:03:23 PM PDT by jmaroneps37 (Conservatism is truth. Liberalism is lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
Election fraud “doesn’t exist” because the Republican Party is not allowed investigate per a consent decree from lawsuit.

New Jersey, 1981?
I am sure I have lots of company in total ignorance about this suit, and its yearly "renewal."

Several observations. First of all it's obscure and unknown; that is no longer true.
Number 2 -- it prevents the GOP from challenging FRAUDULENT VOTING, BUT NO OTHER PARTY OR GROUP WITH STANDING.

That can be fixed.

Finally, it is a curiosity that "stings" are legal to identify and catch prostitutes, drug dealers, car thieves and sundry other groups of criminals, but not fraudulent voters!

What's up with that?

23 posted on 08/16/2013 12:38:18 PM PDT by publius911 (Look for the Union label, then buy something else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: publius911

Unfortunately no “Other Party Or Group” has the resources or standing to investigate vote fraud.
For instance most judges would toss out a Libertarian investigation into vote fraud because they have no standing - they weren’t going to win anyway so they weren’t harmed.
This is assuming, of course, the Libertarians had the resources for such an investigation in the first place.


24 posted on 08/16/2013 12:55:19 PM PDT by Little Ray (How did I end up in this hand-basket, and why is it getting so hot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
Unfortunately no “Other Party Or Group” has the resources or standing to investigate vote fraud.

I find that hard to believe. Only "official" parties have standing?

That certainly suggests several avenues of attack. As a group, honest legal voters far outnumber all other groups combined!

And they are certainly the most clearly injured.

25 posted on 08/16/2013 1:07:33 PM PDT by publius911 (Look for the Union label, then buy something else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: publius911

The “justice” system is so corrupt that I doubt it would agree that voters have standing to sue over vote fraud.
Most likely, the courts would hold that only candidates with “real” chance of winning have standing, i.e. Democrats and ‘Pubbies, have standing. The candidate would have to show that vote fraud caused him to lose the election. I think it is really that bad now.
And ‘Pubbies can’t sue or investigate vote fraud, while Democrats encourage it.


26 posted on 08/16/2013 1:49:07 PM PDT by Little Ray (How did I end up in this hand-basket, and why is it getting so hot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter

Meanwhile a couple days ago Juan Williams on Special Report said there is absolutely no proof of Democrat fraud...


Juan would FU a nocturnal emission.....


27 posted on 08/16/2013 3:44:50 PM PDT by S.O.S121.500 (Case back hoe for sale or trade for diesel wood chipper....Enforce the Bill of Rights. It's the Law!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: S.O.S121.500

No kidding.


28 posted on 08/16/2013 5:42:26 PM PDT by gov_bean_ counter (Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

Thank you for the clarification.


29 posted on 08/17/2013 12:04:49 PM PDT by marktwain (The MSM must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson