July 2011 - Posts

Obomination: The DNC’s New Fundraising Headquarters at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Fri, Jul 29 2011 7:18 AM

The White House has been finding lots of ways to package everything Obama does as “unprecedented.”  But on June 17, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney reversed course to call a March 7 meeting with the 44th president “totally precedented.”  White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler has claimed that Obama’s behavior was “consistent with the practices of prior Administrations from both political parties.”  There’s a reason behind the complete reversal in terminology: Obama may have violated the law.

On March 7, the Democratic National Committee sponsored a meeting of two dozen Wall Street executives with President Obama in the Blue Room of the White House.  There’s only one problem: using the White House for fundraising purposes is illegal. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney’s claim that “[t]his was not a fundraiser” seems highly suspect. 

The Democratic National Committee was involved in multiple ways: the DNC invited the guests, paid the $68 tab, and  DNC leadership was in attendance. Including DNC executive director Patrick Gaspard, DNC treasurer Andy Tobias, and DNC fundraiser Brad Thompson.

The invited guests to the March 7 meeting all previously donated to Obama in 2007 or 2008.  They included former New Jersey Gov. and former Goldman Sachs CEO Jon Corzine former technology executive Bernard Schwartz and banking executive James Staley.  Also important is that the meeting was not listed on President Obama’s public schedule.

Press accounts offer further evidence that this event was of questionable legality.  Two attendees said the meeting was “clearly related to the campaign.” Obama also followed up the meeting with fundraising phone calls to the Wall Street executives.  A subsequent fundraising event orchestrated by the DNC was held in the New York home of Marc Lasry, CEO of Avenue Capital Group, who was in attendance at the March 7 meeting.  Donors who attended the meeting later gave $1,750,254 to Obama and Democratic congressional candidates.  Sixteen of the attendees raised $3.95 million to Obama’s 2012 election race.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has launched an investigation of this meeting.  Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.-49) sent a letter on July 11 to White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler, requesting documents and communications between White House staff related to the March 7 event.  Issa then sent a letter on July 13 to DNC Executive Director Patrick Gaspard demanding all DNC records including the invitations and RSVPs.  Issa plans to hold Congressional hearings with “White House people testifying.” 

Richard Painter, President Bush’s ethics counsel in the White House, said, “It’s obvious that the DNC is going after these people for money, not just for their thoughts.”  Scott Coffina, ethics adviser to Bush, also weighed in on the ethical issues, by noting “It is unclear why the Democratic National Committee would have been used to organize a meeting to solicit advice on the economy.” 

Many liberal organizations also have expressed their concern about this meeting.  Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center questioned the DNC-sponsorship, because “[t]hat’s what raises the eyebrows.”  Mary Boyle, vice president of communications for Common Cause, said, “It looks bad. It’s disappointing that [Obama]… would host in the White House a meeting with past or current donors.”  Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21 declared, “Meetings in the White House should not have any political fundraising overtones.”

How can a president have the audacity to let party operatives send invitations, as well as come and foot the bill for a meeting with donors at the White House?  Now, that’s “totally unprecedented.”

Share |
A "Sensible" Op-Ed and Upcoming Debate on Voter ID
Thu, Jul 28 2011 9:43 AM

At its Election Law Seminar on August 12 and 13 in Cincinnati, RNLA will host a closing debate on Voter ID.  The debate will be an effort to sort out the emotionally charged rhetoric of the left with a more even handed approach to the topic.  Debating the pro Voter ID side will be former FEC Commissioner and 2009 RNLA Ed Meese Award Winner Hans Von Spakovsky.  Today von Spakovsky wrote an op-ed on voter ID that was printed in The Kansas City Star, entitled “Voter ID is a sensible precaution.”  First, von Spakovsky tackles the myth perpetrated by the far-left Brennan Center that Voter ID somehow disenfranchises minorities, the facts all point in the opposite direction.  He writes:

Opponents of Georgia and Indiana's voter ID laws filed lawsuits claiming that huge numbers of state residents would be "disenfranchised." Those claims were thrown out by the courts because, as an Indiana federal District Court observed, "Despite apocalyptic assertions of wholesale voter disenfranchisement," opponents could not find any registered voters who would be prevented from voting.

 In Georgia, the NAACP, a plaintiff in the case, could not produce a single member who would be unable to vote because of the ID requirement.

Von Spakovsky also quotes Rhode Island’s governor, who is an independent and mentions the polls that demonstrate that essentially all Americans, except the extreme left, agree voter ID is reasonable and the right thing to do.  He notes:

"Requiring identification at the polling place is a reasonable request to ensure the accuracy and integrity of our elections." So said Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee - an independent - as he signed his state's new voter ID law on July 6, making Rhode Island the seventh state this year to pass a common-sense requirement that voters present valid identification before casting their ballots.

 Polling shows that a substantial majority of Americans from all racial and ethnic backgrounds agree it's the right thing to do.

After the piece was published, Hans von Spakovsky notes that: 

 In an unfortunate example of political correctness gone amuck, you will note that in the third paragraph the editors changed my legally correct and 100% accurate reference to “illegal aliens” to “undocumented immigrants.”

The RNLA will continue efforts to present the facts of Voter ID and welcomes rational debate on the issue. 

Share |
More Vote Fraud that the Left Won't Count
Wed, Jul 27 2011 5:20 AM

 

Critics of efforts to make it easier to vote but harder to cheat say try to limit vote fraud to incidents of voter impersonation.  The reality is vote fraud is much more, and on Monday a 2 year old vote fraud case came closer to conclusion. 

 William A. McInerney, the Troy city clerk identified as a target in an election fraud investigation, abruptly submitted his resignation Monday from the job to which he was appointed in 2008.

. . .On July 4, the Times Union first reported that a special prosecutor had offered McInerney a deal to plead guilty to a felony charge and possibly avoid a prison sentence in exchange for his cooperation in a broader ballot fraud investigation that began in September 2009.  The plea offer called for McInerney to resign from his job.

.  . . The ballot fraud investigation already has resulted in the indictment of two Democrats, Troy Councilman Michael LoPorto and Rensselaer County Board of Elections Commissioner Edward McDonough. Both pleaded not guilty to a 116-count felony indictment unsealed in January and are awaiting trial. . . .

State Police, in court documents, have said they have evidence that McDonough delivered a bundle of forged WFP absentee ballots to McInerney on the eve of the 2009 primary election.

There was a “bundle of votes” delivered in this case but I am sure that the Brennan Center and others will not count this as vote fraud because it did not involve impersonation.  Further, because people are resigning and not going to prison, again the Left will not count this.  Lastly, since Democrats were working through the Working Families Party (WFP, An ACORN front), they will likely dismiss it as third party vote fraud. 

But the facts are different.  Elected Democrat officials and a government employee tried to rig an election.  I call that vote fraud.  

 

 

by Michael Thielen | with no comments
Filed under:
Share |
100 House Democrats Send Letter to Holder Saying Voter ID is Illegal
Tue, Jul 26 2011 11:44 AM

Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH) sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder signed by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and 100 other House Democrats.  The letter asks the Department of Justice to examine whether voter ID laws are illegal under the Voter Rights Act. In the letter, Fudge writes:

Many of these bills only have one true purpose, the disenfranchisement of eligible voters - especially the elderly, young voters, students, minorities and low-income voters.

Apparently, Ms. Fudge has not read a study conducted by Jeffrey Milyo after the voter ID law was passed in Indiana. Milyo’s study found that voter turnout actually increased by two percentage points in the next election. The letter also states that 11 percent of voting age citizens do not have government issued photo identification. Fudge’s statistics contrast a recent study by the Bureau of Motor Vehicles in her state of Ohio, finding that there are actually 28,000 more drivers licenses in Ohio than eligible voters. Fudge also makes claims of disenfranchisement because the cost of obtaining an ID would be too burdensome.  However, she has clearly not read the voter ID law in her own state of Ohio, which states ID cards will be provided by the state, free of charge.  

Additionally, her letter asks Holder to:

Exercise your authority to examine these laws so that voting rights are not jeopardized, and to brief Congress on Justice Department efforts to ensure these new laws are implemented in accordance with the Voting Rights Act.

Ms. Fudge should have examined the voter ID law and statistics from her own state. Her letter contains multiple inaccuracies and mischaracterizations of voter ID laws. She uses the same tired statistics that have long since been proven inaccurate. Also not surprising is that Fudge was able to convince 100 House Democrats including leaders Pelosi and Hoyer to co-sign her letter that contains such false representations.  It continues the smear campaign against voter ID

To hear a debate on voter ID, please check out the RNLA website, http://www.rnla.org in the coming weeks. We will be posting a podcast of a voter ID debate from our Election Law Seminar, August 12 and 13 in Cincinnati Ohio. The panel will feature Heritage Foundation Senior Fellow Hans A. von Spakovsky and Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Professor Daniel P. Tokaji. 

Share |
Obomination: Investigating the Campaigner-in-Chief
Fri, Jul 22 2011 6:01 AM

Obama’s aggressive campaign efforts have led to probing questions by many prominent legal and political figures in Washington.  Is Obama breaking the law to remain in office? 

As previously discussed, Obama for America sent an e-mail on June 27 with a DNC-filmed video of President Obama announcing a raffle contest for donors where the prize would be a dinner with Vice President Biden and himself. It is a crime under federal law to use government property for official business such as campaigning.

White House spokesman Eric Schultz said that “all of what this administration is doing is above board” according to unnamed “experts and lawyers.”  If Eric Schultz had asked people outside the White House Counsel’s office, he probably would have gotten a different opinion.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.-49) has focused efforts on investigating Obama’s campaigning efforts.  He thinks the video “may be illegal if it was filmed inside the White House.”  Issa sent a letter on July 11 to White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler, requesting information about this video, as well as information about a March 7 meeting with donors in the White House and use of the White House chef for political purposes.

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus has called for a Department of Justice investigation of Obama.  Priebus sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder requesting that Obama be held “accountable…for his apparent criminal behavior.” He concluded that “[t]he facts of this case strongly suggest a crime was committed.”

RNLA Meese Award winner Hans von Spakovsky indicated that if it had taken place in the Map Room (and not part of the residence), there is no doubt that the filming was illegal.  “The video is clearly designed to get people to participate in this raffle and the video takes you directly to a web site – directs you to a web site – where there’s an immediate solicitation for funds,” he said.

RNLA President Cleta Mitchell said the video “is a violation” of the law against solicitation by the President on government property.  She added, “it’s a criminal offense.”

Share |
Democrat Makes Outrageous Comparison of Voter ID to Ku Klux Klan
Thu, Jul 21 2011 7:00 AM

 

“Instead of having hoods and Klan meetings, we've dressed it up as law,” Phil Noble, president of the S.C. New Democrats said. "But it still has the same effect as a barrier to keeping black folks from voting.”

Noble’s comment about voter ID laws is outrageous and improper.  Asking for photo identification to cast a ballot has absolutely nothing to do with a racist group who were responsible for terrorizing and killing thousands of African Americans.  To make such a comparison minimizes the harm that the KKK caused.

The president of the South Carolina New Democrats also fails to realize that the KKK was formed by Southern Democrats in an effort to diminish the power of the abolitionist Republican Party.   Democrats seem to be using the KKK, or the specter of it, to challenge what many legislatures have passed across the country.

The case for voter ID is compelling.  Requiring a photo ID at the polls will reduce fraud.  Voter ID does not disenfranchise voters.  The South Carolina voter ID bill explicitly states that government-issued photo IDs are free of charge; there is no financial barrier to voting.

Democrats are trying to incite public anger because they can’t convince people otherwise.   Confronted with the facts that three out of four Americans support voter ID (and a majority of Democrats favor voter ID as well), Democrat leaders are resorting to shameful tactics to gather support for their unpopular agenda. 

 

 

Share |
Soros Finds Another Way To Influence Elections
Wed, Jul 20 2011 3:51 PM

Billionaire Democratic financier George Soros is a huge fundraiser of Democratic candidates running for President, United States Senate, and the United States House of Representatives. However, Mr. Soros has also been keeping a close eye on another important office: Secretary of State.

Since 2006, Mr. Soros has given over ten thousand dollars to a small tax-exempt political group called the Secretary of State Project. The purpose of the group is to elect Democratic Secretaries of State. Mr. Soros and his colleagues are becoming involved in these races because the Secretary of State is the chief election official in the state. The Secretary of State Project has backed 11 winning candidates in 18 elections.

Instead of heeding the advice of the non-partisan Baker-Carter Commission, which recommended taking away the administration of elections from Secretaries of State and giving it to non-partisan election officials, Mr. Soros is seeking to make the process more partisan. The liberal Secretary of State Project also includes founders and former top aides for Democracy Alliance, MoveOn, and ActBlue.

Minnesota is the prime example of the project’s success. Helping to elect Mark Ritchie to be Minnesota Secretary of State in 2006 and 2010, Democrats had one of their own making key decisions when the extremely close U.S. Senate race between incumbent Norm Coleman, a Republican, and his challenger, former comedian Al Franken, went to a recount in 2008.

Mr. Ritchie headed the canvassing board that conducted the recount. Mr. Coleman initially had a lead of 206 out of 2.9 million votes cast, but after the recount, the board decided Mr. Franken had won by 225 votes.

The Secretary of State Project allows Democrats to have one of their own in a position to manipulate elections in all fifty states. Mr. Soros has spent millions of dollars trying to defeat Republican candidates. He has now found a cheaper way to do it: manipulate elections on a state level to get a desirable result. 

by Brian Bennett | with no comments
Filed under:
Share |
Support for Voter ID Hits YouTube
Wed, Jul 20 2011 10:41 AM

Photo identification is requested at all sorts of places that people frequent.  Former Charlotte, North Carolina mayor Pat McCrory recognizes this fact and questions Governor Bev Perdue for vetoing a voter ID law that would request photo ID at another place: the polls. 

To show support for voter ID, McCrory has developed an interesting new contest: post a video of yourself using photo identification.  Videos posted have people showing photo identification to go the gym, buy alcohol, get a lottery ticket and purchase certain cold medicine. McCrory said, "Whether it be a library, an ABC store, a curb market, or even the old statehouse building where Governor Perdue's office [is]... you have to show a photo ID.”  To read more about McCrory’s project or find out how to participate, click here.

The RNLA has recently published a chart with occasions when photo identification is commonly requested.  To view the chart and RNLA President Cleta Mitchell’s accompanying message, click here.

Share |
Cornyn Calls Attention to Military Voter Disenfranchisement
Tue, Jul 19 2011 3:08 PM

On July 19, 2011, the Military Voting Rights Conference was held in Washington, D.C.   About 120 people attended the event, co-sponsored by Military Families United, the Military Voter Protection Project and the Heritage Foundation.  Keynote speakers were Senator John Cornyn (R-Tex.) and Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani, Jr. USN (ret.).   Panelists included Secretaries of State, the director of the Federal Voting Assistance Program and former Department of Justice Voting Section attorneys.

Senator John Cornyn delivered a keynote, calling the disenfranchisement of military voters “a national disgrace.”    Senator Cornyn helped author the 2009 Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act that revised the 1986 Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA).  The MOVE Act requires that blank ballots be sent to military voters 45 days prior to the date of the election.  However, Cornyn lamented that “we have not yet accomplished our ultimate goal.”  Concerned that states are not complying with requirements of the MOVE Act, he sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder calling for the Department of Justice to ensure that states have adequate plans for compliance and requesting a report of the status of compliance of the states.

Secretaries of State from West Virginia and Alabama spoke about efforts of their jurisdictions to ensure that military voters can cast their ballots, including participation in pilot programs and provision of electronic transmission of a blank ballot to the military.  An election official from Virginia urged that the military be “election-ready” when they deploy overseas.  Also discussed was the ways the procedures for voting were communicate through social media, such as on government websites, Facebook and Twitter.

Former Department of Justice attorneys spoke about how the bureaucracy in the Department has not adequately ensured that the MOVE Act is enforced.  Two of the speakers, Hans von Spakovsky and Christian Adams, are RNLA members.  Christian Adams mentioned that in addition to the legal issues involved (such as the fact no Section 1983 suit has been filed), the DOJ is not taking adequate efforts to find out whether states are in compliance, does not have personnel with this as a priority, does not communicate information for military voters as it has for civilians, and filed lawsuits too late.

Admiral Giambastiani called the MOVE Act “a watershed event for military voters.”  Having only voted in person once, the four-starred general was concerned whether his absentee ballots were counted.  He praised the states who supported military voting the most and commended the efforts of certain states to get in compliance.  However, he was concerned about whether all votes are received, returned and counted.  The Admiral declared, “What could be more important than people charged with defending our democracy being able to participate in it?”

Share |
RNLA President Questions Supposedly Non-Partisan CREW for Joining DNC to Oppose Voter ID
Tue, Jul 19 2011 1:03 PM

In a new op-ed in The Daily Caller, RNLA President Cleta Mitchell responds to attacks by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington’s (CREW) executive director, Melanie Sloan.  Mitchell had written a previous op-ed which cited reputable research about voter fraud and supported photo voter ID laws to preserve the integrity of elections. 

With support for photo voter ID laws coming from former President Jimmy Carter, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and the Rhode Island legislature state with sponsor African-American Senator Harold Metts, voter ID is not a partisan issue, according to Mitchell.  However, with the “high-profile campaign” against photo voter ID laws by Democrat organizations, it has become a political one.

Mitchell asks a pertinent question raised by Sloan’s piece: “Why is a supposedly non-partisan 501(c)(3) national watchdog group interjecting itself into what has become a partisan debate about state-level voter ID laws?”  Mitchell argues that CREW is misusing its non-political 501(c)(3) status by advocating for the agenda of the Democratic National Committee.  CREW has joined DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic Governors Association and former President Bill Clinton in opposing state-level photo voter ID laws.  Read more here.

Share |
Black Activists Disappointed in Clinton’s Jim Crow Analogy
Mon, Jul 18 2011 2:49 PM

At a July 6 address to the left-wing group Campus Progress, Bill Clinton followed the lead of his Democratic counterparts and compared voter ID laws to oppressive Jim Crow laws of the 1950s and 60s. Clinton said:

There has never been in my lifetime, since we got rid of the poll tax and all the Jim Crow burdens on voting, the determined effort to limit the franchise that we see today.

Fortunately, black activists with Project 21 are not allowing Clinton to get away with this insulting and inaccurate statement. Project 21 spokesman Jerome Hudson issued a statement, saying:

It's hard not to ignore the deep historical ignorance in President Clinton comparing voter protection statutes to Jim Crow, and it leaves me deeply disappointed. Clinton diminishes himself by engaging in this brand of gutter politics. It's one thing to dispute a state's legislative attempts to preserve voter integrity, but Clinton crossed the line in his crusade to paint lawmakers concerned about vote suppression through fraud as racists and segregationists. It's despicable and deplorable.

Continuing the organization’s disappointment with Clinton’s comparison of state efforts to protect voters with oppressive Jim Crow laws, another Project 21 spokesman, Coby Dillard said:

Liberals are reintroducing the sins of the past in a disingenuous appeal for political support. That those sins are all they have to turn to shows that their nationally-rejected agenda — raising taxes, forcing an unconstitutional healthcare mandate on Americans and driving energy prices higher to promote an environmental agenda supported by their benefactors — is lost.

Like his Democratic colleagues before him, Clinton has blindly used an offensive analogy with no real facts supporting it. The disgust shown by minority groups, such as Project 21 prove that Clinton, and his Democratic colleagues comparisons are inaccurate and offensive. 

Share |
2009 Ed Meese Award Winner Hans von Spakovsky Publishes Paper on Voter ID
Sat, Jul 16 2011 11:56 AM

2009 Ed Meese Award Winner and RNLA member Hans von Spakovsky has published a paper on voter ID for the Heritage Foundation. Mr. von Spakovsky says there is a need for voter ID laws because of the importance that eligible voters are not stolen or diluted by a fraudulent or bogus vote cast by an ineligible or imaginary voter.

Von Spakovsky responds to critics of voter ID by citing the endorsement of voter ID by the bi-partisan Baker-Carter Commission on Federal Election Reform. He also retorts critics who contend that voter fraud does not exist by citing the Supreme Court’s recognition of voter fraud in Crawford v. Marion County Board of Elections.  

He states that because of the notoriously endemic under-enforcement of voter fraud cases, voter ID laws are needed to detect and deter such fraud. One case occurred in New York in 1984. A New York state grand jury discovered a widespread voter fraud conspiracy that occurred in Brooklyn over a 14-year span. There were thousands of fraudulent votes in state and congressional elections.

Von Spakovsky also discusses ACORN, the ethically challenged organization that has been found to have engaged in the submission of tens of thousands of invalid voter registration forms in multiple jurisdictions. This massive case of voter fraud was only able to occur because of minimal screening efforts. He also cites two recent studies by Secretaries of State that found inaccuracies in their voter rolls after only a preliminary check.

Von Spakovsky also responds to Democratic attacks that voter ID laws suppresses turnout of minority, poor, and elderly voters. He cites numerous independent studies focusing on voter ID. More specifically, a study that found after Georgia and Indiana passed voter ID laws, minority turnout actually increased. During the 2008 election in Georgia, a state with one of the strictest voter ID laws in the country, had the highest turnout in history. States that have no voter ID, such as Illinois, have had smaller increases in voter turnout. Studies also found 82 percent of Americans support voter ID, as well as a study in three states that less than 0.5 percent of eligible voters do not have proper identification.

Lawsuits have also been thrown out in Federal courts due to the inability of plaintiffs to produce a single case of voter suppression. This is indicative of the tireless efforts of voter ID opponents to hurl accusations of suppression and intimidation that have been proven untrue. It is unclear when they will drop their attacks to look at facts and support this reasonable and commonsense solution to voter fraud.

To read Hans von Spakovsky’s entire paper, go here.

Share |
Kansas Secretary Of State Defends Voter ID in Washington Post
Fri, Jul 15 2011 8:49 AM

The recent trend in state legislatures to pass voter ID laws has been a crucial step to ensuring the fairness and integrity of elections. However, Democratic attacks have inaccurately stated that these laws will result in voter suppression, even going as far to draw a comparison to discriminatory Jim Crow laws.

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, recently wrote an op-ed for the Washington post defending the state’s voter ID law. Kobach responded to critics who said he did not adequately prove the 221 incidents of voter fraud he cited as a reason for his office drafting the law. Kobach stated:

In fact, I presented this information to the Kansas legislature in January, and the numbers were extensively reported by the media. The 221 incidents of voter fraud included absentee ballot fraud, impersonation of another voter and other crimes. The vast majority of the cases were never investigated fully because Kansas county attorneys lack the time and resources to pursue voter fraud at the expense of other criminal investigations. Of the approximately 30 cases that were fully investigated, seven resulted in prosecutions. All seven yielded convictions.

Kobach also contravened the fundamentally flawed number from the left-leaning Brennan Center comparing the number of reported cases of voter fraud in a state to the number of votes cast in the state. Kobach responds:

[S]uch use of these statistics is fundamentally flawed. First, most forms of voter fraud are extremely difficult to detect. We see only the tip of the iceberg; the number of instances is likely to be much higher than the number of reported cases. Second, asking what percentage of votes were cast illegally misses the point. The relevant question is: Does the number of illegal votes exceed the margin of victory in a particular race? All too often, the answer is yes.

Kobach also cites an instance of voter fraud in Missouri just last year in a Democratic primary when a state Representative coached 50 Somali citizens, who did not speak English, to vote for him. He won by one vote. Missouri Democratic Governor Jay Nixon ignored such evidence of voter fraud when he vetoed a voter ID bill last month passed by the state legislature.

Kobach then cites a recent, significant instance of voter fraud stealing an election. It was the 2008 U.S. Senate race in Minnesota, in which after a lengthy recount, Democrat Al Franken beat incumbent Republican Norm Coleman by 312 votes. But, in a comprehensive study following the recount, Minnesota Majority found that illegal felons cast 341 votes for Al Franken. Minnesota Democratic Governor Mark Dayton also ignored such evidence of fraud when he too vetoed a voter ID bill passed by the state legislature.

Opponents of voter ID can’t fight the facts. Voter fraud is a real problem that can be prevented by voter ID laws. However, instead of taking proactive steps to stop it, Democrats are rejecting voter ID laws and ignoring the evidence of fraud in their states.

Read Kobach’s op-ed here.

 

Share |
Obomination: Hiding War Behind an Obamism
Fri, Jul 15 2011 7:39 AM

 

Add another ridiculous euphemism to the list.  Obama gave “acts of terrorism” the label “man-caused disasters.”  He coined the term “outliers” for the formerly “rogue” countries of North Korea and Iran.   Now Obama declared in a 32-page report to Congress that the hostilities in Libya are “limited military operations.” This report follows Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes’ reference to the deployment in Libya as “kinetic military action.” 

According to Politico, the Obama administration is engaging in nothing short of “verbal gymnastics”  to avoid admitting that we are at war.  Instead of stating the obvious, Obama hopes that the American public will not figure out what he’s really up to – exercising war powers without Congressional approval.

The War Powers Act authorizes deployment of forces by the President for 60 days without consulting Congress when there is “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” Obama justifies the unilateral action in Libya by claiming that “U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops, U.S. casualties or a serious threat thereof, or any significant chance of escalation into a conflict characterized by those factors.”  State Department legal adviser Harold Koh appeared at the Foreign Relations Committee on June 28 to defend this position.  Koh argued that “The legal trigger for the automatic pullout clock — ‘hostilities’ — is an ambiguous term of art.”

Of this “justification,” Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Oh.) has said, “It just doesn’t pass the straight-face test in my view that we’re not in the midst of hostilities.”  Jonathan Schell points out in an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times that according to the Obama approach:

War is only war, it seems, when Americans are dying — when we die. When only they — the Libyans — die, it is something else for which there is as yet apparently no name…

Some strange conclusions follow from this strange thinking and these strange facts. In the old scheme of things, an attack on a country was an act of war, no matter what. Now the Obama administration claims that if the adversary cannot fight back, there is no war.

It follows that adversaries of the United States have a new motive for — if not equaling us — then at least doing us some damage. Only then will they be accorded the legal protections (such as they are) of authorized war. Without that, they are at the mercy of the whim of the president.

As an academic, Obama should have taught linguistics, not constitutional law.  As president, Obama should spend more time grounding his decisions in reasonable interpretations of the law, rather than developing new euphemisms.

 

Share |
Jesse Jackson Calls Voter ID a “Poll Tax”
Thu, Jul 14 2011 8:26 AM

When the American public overwhelmingly does not agree with your agenda, what do you do?   You could feign a memory lapse, play the race card, or resort to name-calling.  Jesse Jackson is doing all three.

This past Monday, the Rev. Jesse Jackson called the South Carolina voter ID law a modern day “poll tax.”  Jackson’s remarks come at the heels of similar outrageous comments by other Democrats.  Last week, Bill Clinton said, “There has never been in my lifetime, since we got rid of the poll tax and all the Jim Crow burdens on voting, the determined effort to limit the franchise that we see today.” Last month, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz complained that Republicans "want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws" and announced that “Photo I.D. laws, we think, are very similar to a poll tax.” Two months ago, Wisconsin State Senator Bob Jauch made the statement, "Jim Crow, move over – the Wisconsin Republicans have taken your place.” 

Jesse Jackson seems to have forgotten that after being criticized for her remarks, Debbie Wasserman Schultz admitted that “Jim Crow was the wrong analogy to use.”  If you are expecting Jesse Jackson to also apologize, I wouldn’t hold my breath. This type of rhetoric is nothing new for him. At the time of the 2004 elections, he wrote an article in the Seattle-Post Intelligencer titled “Jim Crow Returns to the Voting Booth.”  Elsewhere, he declared that Republicans “are unleashing the modern version of Jim Crow voter suppression techniques.”   

Jackson has pulled the race card out because he knows he can’t convince Americans vote fraud is not a problem. With 75% of Americans supporting voter ID, Jackson is out of ideas about how to push his unpopular agenda. So he associates current voter ID laws with terrible discriminatory laws of the past. If Jesse Jackson only remembered the real plight of black Americans in the segregated South, he would not trivialize their struggles by making a poorly constructed comparison to photo voter ID requirements.

By making such analogies, Jackson is calling anyone who supports voter ID a racist.  But Jackson has conveniently forgotten about Rhode Island. The 4-1 Democratic Rhode Island legislature just passed a voter ID bill which was sponsored by a black Democrat.  It’s just another selective memory lapse for Jackson, who forgets that even Democrat President Jimmy Carter came out in favor of photo voter ID.

If Jesse Jackson wanted to be consistent, he would criticize the other long list of laws that require photo ID.  He claims that voter ID suppresses turnout because minorities, many of whom do not have photo ID, would be disenfranchised.  But if that’s true (and it’s not, according to reputable research on the issue), the same people without photo ID are excluded from basic every-day activities such as driving a car and cashing a paycheck.  If there are really such a major barriers for minorities in day-to-day living, why doesn’t he call other common photo ID requirements a poll tax?   Apparently, consistency and reasonableness go out the window when you have an unpopular agenda to push.

Share |
More Posts Next page »