Critics Proved Wrong Again on Voter ID

By Hans A. von Spakovsky - December 19, 2012

Kris Kobach, the secretary of state of Kansas, has released some very interesting statistics that disprove — once again — the fallacious claims made by critics of voter ID. Kansas, whose voter-ID law became effective this year, has 1.8 million registered voters. From January 1 through September 30, only 120 people in the entire state applied for the free ID that Kansas provides to anyone who doesn’t already have a photo ID.

Those 120 constitute only 0.007 percent of all voters registered in Kansas.

On Election Day, only 0.07 percent of the 1,182,771 Kansans turning out at the polls were unable to show a proper form of identification. They were allowed to cast provisional ballots and told to present a valid ID after the election so that their vote would be counted. Almost half of the provisional voters did so, dropping the number of voters without proper ID to just 0.04 percent of all people who tried to cast votes.

These figures give the lie to claims by the Brennan Center and other voter ID opponents that a whopping 11 percent of voting-age Americans have no acceptable form of photo ID, and that voter-ID laws therefore present a hindrance for many.

In an election where turnout across the country generally went down from 2008, Kansas had a turnout of 66.8 percent. That’s virtually the same as the turnout in 2000 (66.7 percent) — the last presidential election year in which Kansas had no U.S. Senate race.  Sorry, Brennan Center. Your claim that voter ID laws reduce turnout goes up in smoke. Again.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/336110/critics-proved-wrong-again-voter-id-hans-von-spakovsky

Red State Revenge - Starve the Beast!!!

 

Election Cycle political donations, as reported by the Center for Responsive Politics:

Shopping

Price Club/Costco donated $225K, 99% went to Democrats

Rite Aid donated $517K, 60% went to Democrats

Magla Products (Stanley tools, Mr. Clean) donated $22K, 100% went to Democrats

Warnaco (undergarments) donated $55K, 73% went to Democrats

Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia donated $153K, 99% went to Democrats

Estee Lauder donated $448K, 95% went to Democrats

Guess, Inc. Donated $145K, 98% went to Democrats

Calvin Klein donated $78K, 100% went to Democrats

Liz Claiborne, Inc. Donated $34K, 97% went to Democrats

Levi Straus donated $26K, 97% went to Democrats

Olan Mills donated $175K, 99% went to Democrats

WalMart donated $467K, 97% went to Republicans

K-Mart donated $524K, 86% went to Republicans

Home Depot donated $298K, 89% went to Republicans

Target donated $226K, 70% went to Republicans

Circuit City Stores donated $261K, 95% went to Republicans

3M Co. Donated $281K, 87% went to Republicans

Hallmark Cards donated $319K, 92% went to Republicans

Amway donated $391K, 100% Republicans

Kohler Co. (plumbing fixtures) donated $283K, 100% Republicans

B.F. Goodrich (tires) donated $215K, 97% went to Republicans

Proctor & Gamble donated $243K, 79% went to Republicans

Spirits

Southern Wine & Spirits donated $213K, 73% went to Democrats

Joseph E. Seagrams & Sons (incl. Beverage Business and considerable media interests) donated $2M+, 67% went to Democrats

Gallo Winery donated $337K, 95% went to Democrats

Coors & Budweiser donated $174K, 92% went to Republicans

Brown-Forman Corp. (Southern Comfort, Jack Daniels, Bushmills, Korbel Wines, Lenox China , Dansk and Gorham Silver) donated $644 K -- 80% went to Republicans

Restaurants

Sonic Corporation donated $83K, 98% went to Democrats

Triarc Companies (Arby's, T.J. Cinnamon's, Pasta Connections) donated $112K, 96% went to Democrats

Pilgrim's Pride Corp. (chicken) donated $366K, 100% went to Republicans

Outback Steakhouse donated $641K, 95% went to Republicans

Tricon Global Restaurants (KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell) donated $133K, 87% went to Republicans

Brinker International (Maggiano's, Brinker Cafe, Chili's, On the Border, Macaroni Grill, Crazymel's, Corner Baker, EatZis) donated $242K, 83% went to Republicans

Waffle House donated $279K, 100% went to Republicans

McDonald's Corp. Donated $197K, 86% went to Republicans

Darden Restaurants (Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Smokey Bones, Bahama Breeze) donated $121K, 89% went to Republicans

Heinz Republicans $64,000 Democrats $21,300! John Kerry's wife's company!!!

Hotels

Hyatt Corporation donated $187K of which 80% went to Democrats

Marriott International $323K, 81% went to Republicans

Holiday Inns donated $38K, 71% went to Republicans

Demand Better Representation, Split the Electoral Votes!!!

by: Bryan Baumgart - November 9, 2012

The time has come to pursue a split of electoral votes in every state. It's not a hard sell. Americans crave and deserve better representation!!!

The current system of electing our president, "The Electoral College" grants each state one electoral vote for each Congressional Representative (US House of Representatives) and one electoral vote for each representative in the US Senate.

Most states employ a "winner takes all" method (except for Nebraska and Maine) in which they grant ALL of their electoral votes to the presidential candidate that wins the popular vote of their state. This "winner takes all" method is not mandated by the Constitution but is decided by the states. Nebraska and Maine stand as shining examples of better representation as they choose to split their electoral votes, allocating one electoral vote to the candidate that receives the most votes in each congressional district (the remaining two electoral votes are allocated to the state's winner of the popular vote).

A prime motive of the Electoral College was to ensure less populated regions of the country are not ignored and still receive representation.

In reviewing recent elections it is clear that intention has not been met. Every four years the candidates and media focus their attention on a few "battle ground states". The rest of the nation is relegated to staring at our television screens and hoping that Ohio or Florida make the right decision for the rest of us. Partisan volunteers from each state make phone calls to residents in Ohio hoping to sway their votes. Voter fraud strategies are concentrated on those battle ground states making it easier to compromise or even steal and election. The balance of power in the United States now rests in the hands of a select few states. This can't be what our forefathers intended.

How many trips to California, New York or Chicago did Governor Romney make? How many trips to Texas did President Obama make? How many trips to conservative San Diego did Obama make? (likely none). But take a state like Nebraska that splits its Electoral Votes and all of a sudden both candidates show up in the state. President Obama's campaign made several stops in either Omaha (or next door in Council Bluffs) throughout the election cycle.

Moving to a popular vote obviously isn't the solution either. If the popular vote was used to elect our president, only the most populated states would receive representation. The power would be concentrated in those few states while the smaller states would lose representation. Our forefathers didn't trust an uneducated populace to elect a qualified candidate to the office of President. The Electoral College was to serve as a check and balance to prevent manipulation over time by foreign governments or others. It was also to guarantee representation to the smaller and less populated states in the union.

Moving from the Electoral College to a National Popular Vote would not only be dangerous, but virtually impossible. It would require a Constitutional Amendment requiring 38 states to ratify the amendment. The smaller less populated states wouldn't hand over their representation, but that hasn't stopped the threat!

Recently, officials from the larger states have made a push to circumvent the power and representation of the less populated states in their union through a 'National Popular Vote Compact'. The compact between member states pledges the entirety of their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. The compact renders the Electoral College Process irrelevant. Through the compact, the required 270 electoral votes required to elect POTUS could be accomplished through as little as 11 states, rather than the 38 required to amend the U.S. Constitution. The compact has already been enacted by eight states and D.C., garnering a total of 132 electoral votes (California, D.C., Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont and Washington). Half way there!!! The National Popular Vote Compact has already received tremendous bi-partisan support from elected representatives and have been largely endorsed by the main stream media. Polls continue to show large support for the National Popular Vote Compact with Americans favoring the National Popular Vote to the Electoral College 2 to 1. How can this be Constitutional?  It is simply a plan to circumvent the Constitution.

Voter fraud has become an increasingly relevant threat to the credibility of our election process. Splitting the electoral votes effectively addresses the problem of fraud by making it more difficult to focus strategies at specific areas, and it decreases the damage done through voter fraud as less electoral votes are stolen at one time.

It would be naive to expect leaders of the more populated states to get on board, but fortunately America is still a representative form of government and the true power lies with the people.  I propose tackling this issue on a state by state basis through the initiative and referendum process guaranteed to us under the First Amendment. That's right...good ol' fashioned petitions and voter drives. Through educating the voters and pushing a strong GOTV effort. It CAN be done. As a former resident of San Diego California, I know how it feels to live in a state where your vote truly is not represented, but I have also participated in the successful recall of a democratic governor (Gray Davis) in one of the bluest of all states. As I previously stated, Americans crave better representation!!!

Did RNC "Scripted" Rules Change Start A Civil War In The Republican Party?

I hope the war doesn't start until after the election. Defeating obama is critical for this country. Either way, I wouldn't count on this battle going away.

Mutiny Planned at GOP Convention Over Rules Changes

I wonder how many votes this will cost the GOP in November?! What should have been a positive convention that garnered a national spotlight and the opportunity to pick up lots of new votes is turning into anything but. I've been saying for quite some time now...it's time to come together!!! Paul should be speaking for the Ron Paulers, Palin should be speaking for the Tea Party, Herman Cain should be speaking, Col. Allen West should be speaking! Imagine the votes the GOP could have secured. This just doesn't seem very strategic to me. Giving up this election to shield the party from Ron Paulers in the future?

Texas delegates planning floor mutiny over RNC rules changes

By Liz Goodwin - 8/27/2012

TAMPA--On Monday morning, at a meeting of more than 100 Texan delegates and alternates at the Saddlebrook Resort 20 miles north of Tampa, one topic got the crowd more fired up than any other. Delegate Melinda Fredricks read aloud a letter condemning recent changes to the national Republican party's rules that would allow the GOP presidential candidate to veto and replace state delegates.

"Our delegates are in shock that such an amendment even would be presented before the Rules Committee much less passed into rule," Fredricks said. "Please know from the Texas delegation standpoint that the only way a floor fight can be avoided is for this rule to be stricken."

At that point, the entire Texas delegation stood up and applauded.

Texans don't necessarily want to have an ugly floor fight on the same day the party officially nominates Mitt Romney. But they're willing to do it if their concerns about the rule aren't satisfied. The changes, which Mitt Romney's top lawyer put forward last week and Gov. Haley Barbour along with some other Romney supporters have embraced, are seen by opponents as intended to significantly weaken the power of grassroots politics and insurgent candidates such as Ron Paul. Many against the move worry that it would give national candidates the power to replace delegates--often grassroots party faithfuls--with big-time donors or friends.

"We truly consider that an infringement on our rights," Fredricks, a member of the rules committee, told Yahoo News of the changes. Today, states generally choose their delegates at state conventions, and then those individuals travel to the national convention to cast their vote for a candidate based on the share the candidate won of the primary or caucus vote of each state. But, the changes could allow a candidate such as Mitt Romney to boot out any delegates who are assigned to vote for him and replace them.

While opposition to the rules began with Ron Paul supporters, it has spread to the entire Texas delegation and significant portions of those from South Carolina, Colorado, Virginia and Louisiana too. Mitt Romney's campaign lawyer Ben Ginsberg proposed the rule last week, but even some Romney supporters are staunchly opposed to the changes. Indiana delegate and Romney supporter James Bopp wrote in an email to RNC members that it's "the biggest power grab in the history of the Republican Party." Fredricks, a Romney supporter, says only 30 people of the more than 300 Texan alternates and delegates support Ron Paul, yet the delegation is "united" in its opposition to the rule.

At 2pm on Tuesday, the Rules Committee members will debate whether the new rule should be struck down. Fredericks thinks she has the 29 members necessary to start a debate about the change, and is hopeful she can resolve the issue before the committee adjourns and joins the larger convention floor.

"We like to fight behind closed doors...Most of us are reluctant to do a floor flight," Fredricks said.
RNC Chairman Reince Priebus told Salon Monday that he does not expect a floor fight, though he did not explain why.

Paulites are among the staunchest opponents of the new rule. It would prevent insurgent candidates such as Paul from raking up delegate votes in caucus states where party conventions instead of the statewide vote determine how many delegates are awarded. ABC's Chris Good points out that Paul would not have won a plurality of delegates in four states if this rule had been in effect during this primary.

Paul supporter Karen Skrill, an alternate delegate from Vermont, said she and her husband Stewart, a delegate, are upset about the changed rules.

"If this is how it's going to be, I don't want to be a Republican," Skrill told Yahoo News in a discussion on the floor Monday. The Skrills are retired farmers.

"Texas in general doesn't believe the national level should be picking delegates," added Jon Burgin, an alternate delegate from San Antonio who supports Paul. "It's pretty egregious."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/texas-delegates-planning-floor-mutiny-over-rnc-rules-225837647.html 

The following is a copy of the statement that was read in regard to the rule changes:

"We strongly oppose recently proposed changes to the party rules which would give the Republican National Committee unprecedented centralized authority over the presidential nomination process, overriding the autonomy of the states and their long established electoral traditions. We also object strenuously to new rules which would empower the Republican National Committee to change the rules under which it operates between conventions without approval of the body of delegates representing the party membership. These proposed rule changes are tyrannical, contrary to the principles of republican governance and hostile to the interests of the grassroots of the party. Together they constitute an attempt to shift the power in the party from the state parties and their members to an elite establishment which answers primarily to special interests and powerful politicians, a corruption of our party which we believe all true Republicans will find unacceptable."

Issued 8/27/2012

Who Really Won on the SCOTUS Obamacare Decision

by: Bryan Baumgart

Pending the outcome of the November elections it's hard to determine the ultimate winner in yesterday's decision. Most conservatives felt a pit in their stomach immediately after the decision was announced.  Due to the "teasing" offered during the obamacare hearings three months ago, they felt fairly confident that obamacare would fall when the mandate was struck down.  Libs and Dems rightly claimed victory because obamacare did not fall.  But he who laughs last laughs loudest!

As the dust settled, conservatives began to realize that perhaps Justice Roberts had not betrayed them after all.  Perhaps the decision was part of a veiled and brilliant strategy.  If obamacare had fallen due to the mandate being struck down only on the grounds of the "commerce clause", similar legislation could pop back up in the future.  However, due to the court disagreeing with obama and ruling the mandate a tax, Republicans have the opportunity to repeal the law through the reconciliation process with a simple majority of Romney and 51 votes in the Senate, avoiding filibuster. 60 senators are no longer necessary. 

The ruling has also appeared to have passified the left while energizing the right.  The Romney campaign pulled in $1 million dollars within 3 hours of the ruling.  He finished the day with over $4 million dollars in donations.  Meanwhile, the DNC is so broke they are considering cancelling opening ceremonies at their National Convention.  The ruling has also saddled obama with responsibility for the largest tax increase in the history of the world!  A very regressive tax that disproportionately hits the middle class. It reveals obama as either a liar or a very incompetent Constitutional Scholar.  History shows that elections aren't kind to middle-class tax hikers or liars, and this ruling has granted obama the title of both!  It appears the pendulum has finally been pulled too far left. Get ready for the swing. Perhaps never before has the right been so fired up! (not even election night 2008). 

In reality, the Supreme Court's decision was exactly what everyone expected three months ago before the hearings. We are actually right where we expected to be right now, except the left was just passified while the right needed this catalyst to be energized and determined enough to dominate the elections, repeal the law, and seat judges swinging the bench far to the right. 

The only thing standing in the way of repeal appeared to be the threats and bribes surrounding implementation of state exchanges before November.  Obama had bribed states with federal funding for exchanges and threatened them with forcing the federal version of exchanges on them if they did not implement them right away.  States were threatened with losing federal funding for medicaid if they did not play ball, but the court nixed that threat as well, giving Republican Governors the ability to "play ball".  As reported by the Washington Examiner on Drudge yesterday, “The Republican Governors Association said that nothing should be done by the states until after the election, a clear signal that they believe a GOP president, House and Senate will kill the health care reform”.

If there was ever a call for the factions of conservatism to come together...Thursday was it!  This is the time to join forces with ALL of the groups with the common goal of taking the 2012 elections, repealing obamacare, and placing conservative judges on the bench!  Establishment, Ron Paulers, Libertarians, Tea Partiers, Constitutional Conservatives...everyone! Time to unify and make this era of the lib's nothing more than a dirty stain on America's history!

"There is one more step in deciding obamacare's fate. Mitt Romney will appeal the Supreme Court decision to the ultimate arbiter - the American people. We expect a decision on November 6th. Oral arguments have already begun."

The Reality of Voter Fraud

 By John Fund - May 2, 2012


The 2012 elections will feature many close races, likely including the presidential contest. That makes concern about voter fraud and ballot integrity all the more meaningful, and a conference held here last weekend by the watchdog group True the Vote made clear just how high the stakes are.

“Unfortunately, the United States has a long history of voter fraud that has been documented by historians and journalists,” Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in 2008, upholding a strict Indiana voter-ID law designed to combat fraud. Justice Stevens, who personally encountered voter fraud while serving on various reform commissions in his native Chicago, spoke for a six-member majority. In a decision two years earlier clearing the way for an Arizona ID law, the Court had declared in a unanimous opinion that “confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy. Voter fraud drives honest citizens out of the democratic process and breeds distrust of our government. Voters who fear their legitimate votes will be outweighed by fraudulent ones will feel disenfranchised.”

Indeed, a brand-new Rasmussen Reports poll finds that 64 percent of Americans believe voter fraud is a serious problem, with whites registering 63 percent agreement and African-Americans 64 percent. A Fox News poll taken last month found that 70 percent of Americans support requiring voters to show “state or federally issued photo identification” to prove their identity and citizenship before casting a ballot. Majorities of all demographic groups agreed on the need for photo ID, including 58 percent of non-white voters, 52 percent of liberals, and 52 percent of Democrats.

Catherine Englebrecht, the Houston businesswoman and mother who founded True the Vote in 2009 after witnessing an ACORN-style group registering thousands of illegal or nonexistent voters in Houston, told the voter observers from 32 states gathered for the summit: “There is nothing more important this year than your work in making sure legitimate votes aren’t canceled out by fraud.”

Liberal groups ranging from the ACLU to the NAACP oppose voter-ID laws, claiming that voter fraud is almost nonexistent and that an ID requirement would amount to voter suppression. It’s certainly true that in-person voter fraud — the type of fraud most easily fought with voter-ID laws — isn’t the whole picture. Voter-ID laws must be combined with tighter controls on absentee ballots, the tool of choice of fraudsters. But filmmaker James O’Keefe demonstrated just last month how easy — and almost impossible to detect — voter impersonation can be: A white 22-year-old assistant of O’Keefe’s was offered the Washington, D.C., primary ballot of Attorney General Eric Holder, the most visible opponent of ID laws.

Just this week in Fort Worth, Texas, a Democratic precinct chairwoman was indicted on charges of arranging an illegal vote. Hazel Woodard James has been charged with conspiring with her non-registered son to have him vote in place of his father. The only reason the crime was detected was that the father showed up later in the day to vote at the same precinct. Most fraudsters are smart enough to have their accomplices cast votes in the names of dead people on the voter rolls, who are highly unlikely to appear and complain that someone else voted in their place.

One of the highlights of the True the Vote conference was a speech by Artur Davis, who was a Democratic congressman from Alabama until last year. Davis has been an up-and-coming black Democratic leader, having been selected to second the nomination of Barack Obama at the 2008 Democratic convention in Denver.

But in 2009 he decided to vote against Obamacare because he viewed it as unworkable and too expensive. When he ran the next year in the Democratic primary for governor in Alabama, he was attacked as disloyal and defeated by a coalition of liberals, teachers’ unions, and old-style black political machines.

He told me that the voter suppression he most observed in his 68 percent African-American district was rampant fraud in counties with powerful political machines. To keep themselves in power, these machines would frequently steal the votes of members of minority groups. “I know it exists, I’ve had the chance to steal votes in my favor offered to me, and the people it hurts the most are the poor and those without power,” he said.

Davis made it clear in his speech to True the Vote that much of the opposition to voter-ID and ballot-integrity laws is a sad attempt to inject racism into the discussion and intimidate supporters of anti-fraud laws. “This is not a billy club, this is not a fire hose,” he told his audience while holding up his driver’s license. “Where is this notion that if I have a right [to vote], that I don’t have to be bothered with responsibility?” He concluded with an appeal for all sides to eschew racial appeals: “We have to be one country, but the way you become one country is you stop acting like a country that’s divided into different buckets and bases of people.”

It’s a pity that so much of the discussion about voting this fall will be drenched in race. Americans have two important rights when it comes to voting. The first is the right to vote without fear and intimidation, for which this country fought an epic civil-rights struggle in the 1960s. Those gains in voter access must be preserved. But Americans also have a right to vote without their ballots’ being canceled out by people who are voting twice, are voting for the dead or nonexistent, or are non-citizens. We can and should accomplish two goals in the 2012 election — making sure it is easy to vote, and making sure it is hard to cheat. Groups such as True the Vote will be essential to make sure both sides of that imperative are fulfilled.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/297461/reality-voter-fraud-john-fund

More Info on Americans Elect's Attempt to Steal Election

Few are aware of the push by the highly funded and highly organized group Americans Elect (even in Nebraska where AE has been successful) to get an independent candidate on the ballot in all 50 states. 

Collecting over 2 million signatures, currently AE has been approved for ballot access in 21 states. The group is funded by folks with ties to prominent democrats like Obama and the Clintons. Are the Rothschilds behind AE as well?

AE plans to hold an Internet vote to decide who will run as the independent candidate in November’s Election. It is likely that their intent is to push a right leaning candidate in order to steal votes from the Republican nominee. Because their Internet voting process is vague and authenticity of votes and outcome are hard to verify, those in charge of AE are able to rig and push whichever candidate they so choose. 

It appears AE accepts large denomination "donations" and repays the donors with interest. The money they used to pay back the whales (with interest) comes from the much larger pool of (much smaller) donors.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but how isn't this a pyramid scheme? If someone donates a million dollars to AE, and is repaid OVER a million dollars in return, how is that a donation? All of the small donations are funding interest and principle payments on these loans made by the largest contributors.

 Is AE a viable threat? Is it time to do something about it now…before it’s too late?

Video Exposes Just How Easy Voter Fraud Is Without ID Laws

by Christian Hartsock - 3.13.2012

James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas has released a new video exposing just how easy it is to commit voter fraud in Vermont.

The video, a sequel to O'Keefe's "Primary of the Living Dead" in New Hampshire, shows a Veritas agent entering various voting places around the state of Vermont, giving a different name each time. Each time, he is given a ballot without showing an ID, to his disbelief.

In the video, the agent repeatedly requests (but does not take) a Republican primary ballot. As he explained to Breitbart.com: "We wanted to remind viewers this is not a partisan issue. This is a situation wherein anyone -- Republican or Democrat -- can exploit the system."

The new video follows in the wake of a highly-politicized media attack on Mr. O’Keefe after his exposure of voter fraud in New Hampshire. Those videos resulted in calls from the left for O’Keefe’s arrest. However, the videos soon resulted in the New Hampshire State Senate passing a new bill requiring voter ID.

O'Keefe's new video from Vermont could not be more timely, coming the day after the U.S. Department of Justice's civil rights division blocked a Texas photo ID requirement for voters--to the applause of the American Civil Liberties Union, which claimed that the law was “discriminatory” against “Latinos, African-Americans, elderly citizens, and others.”

As the Project Veritas video shows, the current system in Vermont discriminates against actual legal voters, who must face the prospect of disenfranchisement by those who would vote in their stead illegally, or have their votes cancelled out by those voting illegally in place of deceased voters who have yet to be removed from the rolls. If it is not discriminatory for Vermont citizens to be required to show ID to get married or buy alcohol, it is certainly not discriminatory to make them show ID to vote.

“It is a national disgrace that ballots can be given out in the names of dead people,” O’Keefe told Breitbart.com. “Threats of government intimidation will not stop us from protecting the integrity of the ballot box. If any state has a system which encourages ballots to be given out to the wrong person, dead or alive, we will come to your state, we will film your poll workers, and Project Veritas will put the videos on YouTube. States like Vermont and New Hampshire have to take dead people off voter registration forms and clean up their act, once and for all.”

see video

Voter ID Laws Initially Suggested by Jimmy Carter (2005) / Increased Minority Voter Turnout

Interesting that requiring an ID to vote was one of the proposals in 2005 of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by Jimmy Carter (D).

Interesting that black turnout increased in Georgia in 2008, the first election under a voter-ID law.

A study by the University of Delaware and the University of Nebraska–Lincoln concluded that “concerns about voter-identification laws affecting turnout are much ado about nothing.”

“There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the State’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters,” and “we cannot conclude that the statute imposes ‘excessively burdensome requirements’ on any class of voters.” - liberal Justice John Paul Stevens in US Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision in 2008 upholding Indiana’s voter-ID law.

By Rich Lowry - 3/13/2012

Wherever he goes, people are required to show identification. When cashing a check. When signing up for a library card. When boarding a plane. When entering certain office buildings. When checking into hotels. When (in the case of the youthful-looking) buying a beer or cigarettes, or entering a bar. The tyranny of the photo ID is so all-encompassing that people can’t enter Holder’s own Justice Department without showing one.

Holder is outraged that in a nation where requests for photo ID are ubiquitous, more and more states are requiring that people show them when they vote. In a speech last year, Holder characterized these voter-ID laws as an assault on the voting rights that Congressman John Lewis — the hero of Edmund Pettus Bridge — fought for in the mid-1960s. Back then, blacks in the South had to fear for their safety if they showed up at the courthouse to try to register to vote. Now, states are merely asking everyone, regardless of race, to show identification that is readily available to all, regardless of race.

That Holder can equate the fight against voter ID to the struggles of the 1960s demonstrates a moral obtuseness insulting to the memory of the civil-rights pioneers. His Justice Department is now blocking a new voter-ID law in Texas, after doing the same to a South Carolina law. It argues that the Texas statute will disproportionally affect poor Latinos and therefore violate the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Why would the yokels in Texas do something so outrageous as ask that people prove who they are at polling places? It is obviously a basic check against fraud. Requiring an ID to vote was one of the proposals in 2005 of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by Jimmy Carter and James Baker, neither of whom had previously been noted for his hostility to minorities or the poor.

Analyzing Texas data, the Justice Department contends that anywhere from 6 percent to 10 percent of Hispanic registered voters don’t have ID. It piles up a parade of horribles — no cars, great distances, inconvenient hours — for why such potential voters can’t get to an office to acquire one, even though the state’s Department of Public Safety will issue election-identification certificates for free.

The experience of other states with voter-ID laws suggests that minorities are not the hapless victims that Holder’s Justice Department portrays them to be. Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation points out that black turnout increased in Georgia in 2008, the first election under a voter-ID law, more than it did in Mississippi, which didn’t have such a law. A study by the University of Delaware and the University of Nebraska–Lincoln concluded that “concerns about voter-identification laws affecting turnout are much ado about nothing.”

Before his next speech, Holder should bone up on the Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision in 2008 upholding Indiana’s voter-ID law. The liberal Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion. The Court held that “there is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the State’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters,” and “we cannot conclude that the statute imposes ‘excessively burdensome requirements’ on any class of voters.” The decision cited the finding of a district judge that plaintiffs had “not introduced evidence of a single, individual Indiana resident who will be unable to vote as a result of the law.” Presumably, if the Indiana law had represented the recrudescence of Jim Crow, the nation’s highest court would have noticed.

Not that any of this matters to Attorney General Holder. Just as the administration is manufacturing a “war on women,” he wants to manufacture a “war on voting rights.” It is the same MO of fevered rhetoric and distortions in the service of the same end of motivating key voting blocs.

Holder’s tenure as the government’s top lawyer is an ongoing disgrace.

‘National Popular Vote Compact’

As discussed at the DCRP Central Committee meeting last night, there is a real (and extremely dangerous) movement known as the 'National Popular Vote Compact'.

The agreement is aimed at circumventing the Electoral College Process, thus taking away the input of states guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution under, Article II, Section 1 which states, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….".

The idea involves a compact between member states promising their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote, thus rendering the Electoral College Process irrelevant. In order to accomplish this goal, the compact requires 270 electoral votes which could be accomplished through as little as 11 states, rather than the 38 required to amend the U.S. Constitution.

The compact has already been encacted by eight states and D.C., garnering a total of 132 electoral votes (California, D.C., Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont and Washington). Almost half way there!!!

Why is this dangerous?

• Non-member states become irrelevant
• Small states such as Nebraska and Iowa become irrelevant.
• Large liberal cities such as NY, Chicago and L.A would decide our elections for us.
• Guarantees candidates would ignore non-member states.
• Deliver's non-member states to the mercy of large liberal cities.

The compact was unanimously opposed by the NEGOP at the State Central Committee meeting on Saturday. It guarantees Nebraska's irrelevance. It guarantees the Democratic Party's dominance. It saddles the country with the same liberal policies that have destroyed and continue to hold down the same large liberal cities that would control the country.

But the compact is already being pushed at the state level. State Senator Ken Haar (D), introduced LB 583 last year and it currently sits before the Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee chaired by Senator, Bill Avery (D).

And Iowa was afraid their caucus would become irrelevant? Candidates would skip non-member states all together!

read more ('National Popular Vote Compact')http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

and more (Objective Conservative)http://objectiveconservative.blogspot.com/2012/01/republicans-go-on-record-opposing.html

read more (LB 583 – 2011)http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalpopularvote.com%2Fresources%2Fbills%2FNE-LB583-Bill-2011-Haar.pdf&ei=xzMgT8zoGKiGsAKY3O3CDg&usg=AFQjCNEBeZd0A0ON6JoO9vxM_oJpRNLhTw


I had a good friend of mine who happens to be a liberal democrat ask why he would oppose something like this? I think the answer is pretty evident here:

Because disregarding the Constitution would be destructive to the country that I hope you love?

Want a picture of the future under that reality? Take a look at the government's website on unemployment:

(Dept. of Labor) http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

Notice the states with the highest unemployment are all those blue states that harbor those large liberal cities. In fact, most are the very states that have already adopted the "National Popular Vote Compact". Gee...why could that be? Because they have no money and no jobs, and this way they can put a government in place that will "take care of them" by taking the wealth from the other states (like us) and giving it to them. Remember, they don't need us anymore, they don't owe us anything, but they have to keep those member states happy because they control the elections!!! Soon...Nebraska and the rest of the nation will all be without jobs or money and look just like those other blue states that lead the nation in poverty and unemployment.

Unemployment of "NPVC" member states: (all blue liberal states btw)

California: 11.1% (50th)
D.C.: 10.4% (47th)
Hawaii: 6.6% (13th)
Illinois: 9.8% (44th)
Maryland: 6.7% (15th)
Massachusetts: 6.8% (16th)
New Jersey: 9.0% (38th)
Vermont: 5.1% (4th)
Washington: 8.5% (34th)



Best states for employment: (red states)
1.) N.Dakota (3.3%)
2.) Nebraska (4.1%)
3.) S.Dakota (4.2%)
6.) Iowa (5.6%)
7.) Minnesotta (5.7%)
8.) Wyoming (5.8%)
9.) Utah (6.0%)
10.) Oklahoma (6.1%)
* (all but 8 of the top half are RED states)

Now take a look at cities with the highest poverty rates. As you can see, most are cities in blue liberal states, but more importantly...let's take a look at specific cities that have a long history of being ran by democratic leadership:

http://by106w.bay106.mail.live.com/mail/InboxLight.aspx?FolderID=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000005&InboxSortAscending=False&InboxSortBy=Date&n=1375334856
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly a third of the residents in Detroit, Michigan, and Buffalo, New York are living beneath the poverty line, the highest rates among large cities in the entire country. Detroit hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961. Buffalo started putting a Democrat in office back in 1954, and it hasn't stopped since. Cincinnati, Ohio(third on the poverty rate list), hasn't had a Republican mayor since 1984. Cleveland, Ohio (fourth on the list), has been led by a Democrat since 1989. St. Louis, Missouri(sixth), hasn't had a Republican since 1949, Milwaukee, Wisconsin(eighth), since 1908, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania(ninth), since 1952 and Newark, New Jersey(10th), since 1907. The only two cities in the top 10 that I didn't mention (Miami, Florida, and El Paso, Texas) haven't had Republicans in office either -- just Democrats, independents or nonpartisans.

Lastly let's check out the best and worst states for business:

http://www.chiefexecutive.net/media/usbestandworststates/2009/

Best States:
1.) Texas
2.) North Carolina
3.) Florida
4.) Georgia
5.) Tennessee
(Red States with conservative economic policies)

Worst States:
1.) California
2.) New York
3.) Michigan
4.) New Jersey
5.) Massachusetts
(Blue States with liberal economic policies)

So...in summary...Why would someone who is a liberal or democrat want to oppose circumventing the Constitution like this?! Well...besides the fact that the Constitution was set up to protect us all (not just conservatives)...you also may wish to oppose this if you wish to keep your job and live above the poverty line!!! Being a liberal is only fun while there is wealth to redistribute. Once everyone is drug into poverty...it becomes much more difficult to live at other's expense!!!