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.

Abortion Culture Must End

We have been talking about the Bill of Rights an Democrat antipathy towards it. How quickly they are all piling onto the effort to trash the Bill of Rights, and redefine "freedom of religion" and "freedom of speech."

But the most fundamental right had already been trampled upon--now over 40 years. That is, the right to life.

I am under the belief that America is something special. You know, this may seem like an antiquated idea to many people. But I am convinced most citizens still love America. The country we love is on the brink of becoming something unrecognizable.

Probably the worst turning point came when we failed to recognize the God-given, inherent rights of all human life. The foundational document of American Democracy before the Constitution and before the Articles of Confederation was the Declaration of Independence, which held “self-evident” that all human beings were created equal in dignity by God, and were endowed by God with “inalienable rights” among which was the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

But if we vote Democrat we are saying, "Kill more innocent and defenseless human beings." If we vote for Obama, we are saying "Kill more innocent defenseless human beings."

For 40 years we have killed innocent human life by the millions. Life which our own intellect can readily discern to be human—the genetic evidence alone is incontrovertible.

In America, we kill human beings. We try to rationalize the convenience of discarding unwanted human life as though it was a disease, or a tissue, yet these are human beings. We even experiment upon them.

And if you are a Democrat today, you are in favor of Federal spending to encourage more killing and experimentation on human beings. You probably, paradoxically, would not condone such treatment of any other species of animal on the planet: But human beings are fair game.

Those who argue for the right to abort at will—Could you please attempt to define what it is to be a human being? Go ahead—what is your definition? Have you given it any thought at all? Can you really come up with a rationale for abortion that does not involve the taking of an innocent human life? Is this a knee-jerk reaction, an emotional response, or a carefully thought out policy position on your part? Can you defend it? And if you cannot, ought not you reconsider your position?

They used to call conservatives knee-jerk reactionaries, but it appears that the irrationality and truly reactive behavior is coming from the American Left, which seems to be at war with some pretty fundamental tenets of human civilization: (a) Sanctity of human life, (b) marriage and human sexuality, and (c) the family unit as the building block of civilization.

  

  

Peoples Rights Amendment: Absurd But Still Dangerous

If four years ago, a suggestion that the First Amendment right protecting religious freedom would be trampled upon by a future Obama Administration, would have been ridiculed as absurd.  But it happened.  Obama's HHS mandates (will soon) compel religious organizations to pay for services whether they violate the organization's teachings or not.

Now there is a Democrat-sponsored Peoples Rights Amendment which would reinterpret the entire Bill of Rights to exclude the freedoms of speech, petition, assembly, etc. to associations of citizens.  It is not hyperbole to say, as Eugene Volokh recently blogged, "if the People’s Rights Amendment were enacted, Congress would have an entirely free hand to censor what is published in newspapers organized as corporations, what is published by book publishers organized as corporations, what is created by movie studios that are organized as corporations, what is distributed by music companies that are organized as corporations, and so on."  One additional point, many Catholic service organizations, dioceses, and other religious denominations are organized as corporations.  They too would be subject to being silenced and censored by an incresingly beligerant state. 

The United States of America is on the verge of becoming something unrecognizable--a socialist dystopia.   

The Democratic Party Vs. The U.S. Constitution

This will have to be just the start of a series, because this story gets more absurd with each passing day. The Democrats hate democracy--true democracy--and seem determined to chip away at free speech.

There is a current push underway in Congress for the so-called “People’s Rights Amendment” (PRA) which would define persons protected under the Constitution to be “natural persons” and not “corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities.” Missing from the language of the proposed bill is reference to unions, NGOs or other associations, and it is unclear that the term “other corporate entities” would include them. It is also ironic that these Leftists don’t regard human fetuses as “natural persons,” until the double litmus test of (a) live birth and (b) the child’s being wanted by the mother has been met.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-of course), from Massachusetts (sadly enough), has already been endorsed by minority leader Nancy Pelosi. Section 1 states: “We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons.” Natural persons goes undefined. But Section 2 states, “The words people, person, or citizen as used in this Constitution do not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any State, the United States or any foreign state..."

What comes next is revealing of the true motives of this Bill's sponsors: Socialism. Freedom of Speech is a target but so is the right to free enterprise. Look at what the actual text of the bill states.

“...and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected State and Federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.”

Denying associations of citizens from exercising the freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution is tantamount to denying the individual their rights to free association, and could involve the denial of freedom of speech and press, as well as denial of religious liberty. The structure of many if not most Church organizations is that of a corporation. Were the PRA to become law, it could involve an explicit denial of liberty to the Church. This would be a radical departure from the traditional interpretation of the applicability of the Bill of Rights to not just citizens acting alone, but citizens united as a body (the etymology of the words corporate and corporation refer to this--L. corporare=to form into a body, and corpus=body.)

To be continued...