Numerous Reasons Exist to Vote Against Obama—Here are just a few of them…

·        He thinks he is above the law.  For example, in the case of Crawfordv. Marion County Election Board the Supreme Court held an Indiana law mandating photo identification at the voting booth to be constitutional—“Because Indiana’s cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters’ right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.”  Incidentally, the other day I went to the liquor store to buy a six-pack of beer, and had to show my license.  In the past, I have had to show a photo ID in order to cash a check at the bank.  In either instance, was an unfair burden imposed on me, due to age or gender, or race?  So why not show proof of who I am in order to vote?  The SCOTUS got the decision right in Crawford v. Marion County ElectionBoard.  But President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder disagree, and have chosen to ignore the SCOTUS decision. 

·        On 3/12/12, the Obama Administration blocked a voter identification law passed by the Texas legislature in May 2011 on the grounds that it violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  Curiously though, the Texas law is similar to Indiana’s law which the SCOTUS upheld.  The Obama Justice Department argument, as articulated by Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez is that “Hispanic registered voters are more than twice as likely as non-Hispanic registered voters to lack such identification.”  Apparently, Obama and Holder think the task of obtaining a state-issued picture ID card is an undue burden on Hispanics.  But isn’t this a rather patronizingly racist conclusion, apart from the fact that have chosen to simply ignore Crawford?  Incidentally, Obama’s Justice officials are apparently bad at basic mathematics because Justice Department statistics show that only 6.3% of Hispanics registered to vote lack a driver’s license, versus 4.3% of non-Hispanics.  (See: Wall Street Journal article)  This 2% variance is statistically insignificant by the governments own standards for showing adverse impact. (See for example the U.S. Department of Labor-adverse impact.)

·        The Obama Administration has effectively prevented voter integrity in Texas.  They could have intervened in May 2011, but they waited until well into the 2012 election cycle to block the Texas law.  Why?  Because the chances are good that the 2012 elections will come and go before the Federal courts have a chance to render a decision.  What about other states? 

·       In December 2011, Holder’s Justice Department used the same provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to block a South Carolina law.  In South Carolina, 8% of registered white voters were said to lack photo identification versus 10% of non-white registered voters.  This 2% disparity is too small to constitute adverse impact using the standards set by over 40-years of Federal jurisprudence—2-standard deviations, the 4/5ths rule, etc.  But Holder’s Justice Department (a) does not seem to care what the statistical standard is for proving adverse impact, or (b) what the SCOTUS has already ruled in similar cases, or (c) what common sense would dictate in a world where photo-identification is required in numerous other contexts, mandated by law, and not deemed discriminatory. 

·        It saddens me, having spent a significant part of my career remedying real cases of discrimination to discover that Obama and Holder are making a mockery of anti-discrimination law by essentially race-baiting for political gain.  Much of what is going on is a concerted effort by the Obama Administration to give cover to rampant voter fraud in the 2012 elections.  Have you ever heard of the term swamping?  Swamping is when organizations conducting voter registration drives literally swamp “election officials with overwhelming numbers of registrations at the last possible minute, a huge proportion of which are deliberately fraudulent, in order to create systematic chaos.”  The benefits of this strategy are “multifold,” especially when Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder and the Justice Department are siding with the perpetrators of this fraud—ACORN and its affiliate organizations.

·        The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now or ACORN was centrally organized until 2010, in which it became more of a network ofaffiliates under different names after getting in trouble for perpetrating rampant voter fraud as well as playing a significant role in the subprime housing bubble.   

·        Obama has maintained close ties with ACORN for over 20 years.  (See National Review article in addition to the above) From 1992 to 1996, Obama was a trainer at ACORN “leadership training sessions.”  In 2008 his presidential campaign donated “$800,000 to ACORN to help with voter registration.”  ACORN founded a spin-off group called “Project Vote” which creatively registers new voters, including fraudulent and double-voters.

·        ACORN maintains close affiliations with Obama and the Democratic Party.  As noted above, swamping makes “verification of registrations” virtually impossible, “given the small size and limited budgets of state and local election offices.”  And when/if “election officials challenge registrations, they are accused of ‘voter suppression’ ” which is often paired up with accusations of racism.  Sound familiar?  ACORN and its progeny organizations use the media as well as lawsuits to “intimidate election officials, who settle on terms favorable to the Left.”  Because Holder’s Justice Department supports these very same voter intimidation tactics, sues states who attempt to prevent voter fraud, “backs private lawsuits, and resists reform as ‘voter suppression’,” ACORN and company have the upper hand. 

·        How much of Obama’s victory in 2008 could have been attributed to fraudulent votes?  According to MatthewVadum, the senior editor at Capital Research Center, a total of 400,000 bogus ACORN registrations were thrown out in 2008 alone.  ACORN was supposedly disbanded in 2010 but resurrected itself under a number of new names.  As Accuracy in the Media recently reported, “Former ACORN President Bertha Lewis bragged that they created ‘…18 bulletproof community-organizing Frankensteins…’ ”

·        CBS news reported on 2/11/09 that “ACORN…has registered thousands of people to vote in Democratic districts.  Some of these supposed voters reportedly are dead, nonexistent, or use storefronts as their home addresses.” A CNN investigation cited by the CBS newsreport had found that 2,100 voter registrations of 5,000 evaluated werefraudulent: “Registered to a dead person, registered as a person who lives at a fast-food shop…” and “amazingly” numerous forms filed out by the same person—“All the signatures look exactly the same. Everything on the card filled out looks just the same.”  ACORN’s former deputy regional director, Amy Busefink was convicted in 2010 of vote fraud.  While Busefink was under criminal indictment in this case, she “managed an online program for Project Vote’s 2010 Colorado campaign” which allowed people without driver’s license or other forms of identification to “register to vote online.”  Sounds like a shoe-in for Holder’s Justice Department.