5 Jan

Obama’s plan to steal the election of 2012 [Reader Post]

                                       


“I will see nutting!”

Or, why Eric Holder will remain in office until 2013 at least.

A pair of articles from the Washington Times make clear that the White House has a plan for the 2012 election, and that is to guarantee victory for Obama regardless of the outcome of the vote. A large part of it depends on Eric Holder and his continual bastardization of the law.

The first comes from Robert Knight and his account of why democrats despise voter id laws:

Assistant AG Thomas Perez, the same official who terminated the Black Panther voter intimidation case, ordered South Carolina to stop enforcing its voter photo ID law. South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson explained precisely why the law is necessary:

The state Department of Motor Vehicles audited a state Election Commission report that said 239,333 people were registered to vote but had no photo ID. The DMV found that 37,000 were deceased, more than 90,000 had moved to other states, and others had names not matched to IDs. That left only 27,000 people registered without a photo ID but who could vote by signing an affidavit as to their identity.

Contrary to left wing claims, requiring photo ID has not been shown to suppress voter ID:

A bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform in 2005 chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker III found no evidence that requiring photo IDs would suppress the minority vote. The panel recommended a national photo ID system and a campaign to register voters.

The second article comes from Jeffrey Kuhner. Against the backdrop of the Carter/Baker report (of which Holder appears to be completely ignorant) Eric Holder plays the race card for South Carolina:

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. claims Jim Crow is returning. In a recent speech, Mr. Holder said that attempts by states to pass voter identification laws will disenfranchise minorities, rolling back the clock to the evil days of segregation. He said that a growing number of minorities fear that “the same disparities, divisions and problems” now afflict America as they did in 1965 prior to the Voting Rights Act. According to the Obama administration, our democracy is being threatened by racist Republicans. Hence, the Justice Department must prevent laws requiring a photo ID to vote from being enacted.

Holder’s argument has no foothold in reality.

Kuhner points out that Holder’s real problem is that photo ID laws will impair ACORN’s ability to conduct fraud:

Mr. Holder evidently wants to scuttle ID laws because he knows which organization will be hurt most: ACORN. For years, community activist groups, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, have engaged in massive electoral fraud – registering illegal aliens, offering bribes to numerous politically disinterested people in the inner cities as inducements to vote and pushing underage and multiple voting. Election reform, therefore, is a stake aimed at the heart of Democratic corruption and ACORN’s power. Clean up the voter rolls and Mr. Obama’s re-election is in serious jeopardy.

Free photo ID cards are made available to anyone who needs one in South Carolina as are absentee votes for those who would trouble getting to the polls. Additionally, in blocking the South Carolina law Holder runs afoul of stare decisis:

Moreover, the Supreme Court already has ruled on the issue – upholding state voter ID laws. In the 2008 Crawford v. Marion County Election Board decision, the high court held that an Indiana law mandating photo identification at the voting booth was indeed constitutional. If it is good enough for the Supreme Court and the overwhelming majority of the states, then it should be for Mr. Holder as well.

Holder claims that requiring a photo ID is tatamount to a poll tax but that is laughable:

“He has a particularly hard time explaining how the South Carolina requirement of government-issued photo identification amounts to a ‘poll tax’ when the state has also made provisions to provide that identification, free of charge. Hear that, Mr. Attorney General? The only thing the voter has to do is show up and get his or her photo taken. And if that’s too much darn trouble well, then, that person can do something else on election day.”

Why is too burdensome to show up and obtain a photo ID but not too burdensome to show up to vote?

The ducks are aligning in a row. Blocking the South Carolina law will allow ACORN and other left wing operations to run amuck with voter fraud. The problem is that election fraud is a Federal offense, and that’s where Holder becomes critical. I fully expect no end to election chicanery on the part of the ACORN and the left, whether it involves “finding” lost votes as in Minnesota, printing out enough democrat ballots to guarantee a victory, forging signatures, or forging more signatures. I also expect that Holder would dismiss out of hand all claims beneficial to Obama and democrats and pursue only those in which the outcomes favored Republicans.

Ultimately the job of the Attorney General of the United States is protect the law from abuse but it is painfully clear that Eric Holder was appointed to protect abuse from the law.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote:

”There is no question about legitimacy or importance of a state ‘s interest in counting only eligible voters.”

The integrity of the vote means nothing to Holder. Eric Holder would not know integrity if it bit him in the ass.

And that’s exactly why he was appointed.

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Constitution, Culture of Corruption, Deception and Lies, Disasters, Election Fraud, Freedom, Law Enforcement, Politics, POWER GRAB!, WtF? and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 9:00 am
| 2,301 views

37 Responses to Obama’s plan to steal the election of 2012 [Reader Post]

  1. FedUp says: 1

    What the hell are we paying our congress-critters for? They should be out there impeaching Holder AND Obama! They are both meddling in subverting the Constitution and the will of the People! Time for them to go NOW!

    ReplyReply
  2. Dave B says: 2

    Can someone explain to me why it is a burden to provide ID for voting, but not an equal burden to provide ID to buy booze?

    ReplyReply
  3. DrJohn says: 3

    @Dave B:

    Can someone explain to me why it is a burden to provide ID for voting, but not an equal burden to provide ID to buy booze?

    As soon as I finish my brandy….

    ReplyReply
  4. Nan G says: 4

    Obama’s going to have to steal the next election…..if he’s to win.
    there’s a gem of a punchline near the end of Andrew Malcolm’s latest:

    Obama’s traveling show encounters an unexpected moment in Ohio

    ….
    ….
    Obama goes to Shaker Heights High School.
    ….
    [O]ut of the blue Wednesday, came a tiny incident. A minute moment. There had been no signs of trouble, nothing to reveal that the Real Good Talker’s real good talking had lost his touch or control of his sitting subjects…….

    Obama said, “You inspire me.”

    And you know how the members of that crowd in the most Democratic district of Ohio responded to that campaigning Democratic president’s professed sincerity this time?

    They laughed at him.
    ….

    The whole thing is worth the read.

    ReplyReply
  5. Greg says: 5

    The state Department of Motor Vehicles audited a state Election Commission report that said 239,333 people were registered to vote but had no photo ID. The DMV found that 37,000 were deceased, more than 90,000 had moved to other states, and others had names not matched to IDs. That left only 27,000 people registered without a photo ID but who could vote by signing an affidavit as to their identity.

    People who die don’t contact the Voters Registration Office to unregister, nor do they show up at the DMV to surrender their drivers licenses. It’s up to the state to cross-match death certificates with voter registration records. This may be accomplished by utilizing things known as databases and computers, which I presume also exist in South Carolina. If you haven’t done such a cross-match regularly, when you do you’ll uncover a large backlog of dead people who still have the credentials to vote and drive. Short of a zombie outbreak, that doesn’t mean that they’re likely to.

    People who leave a state generally don’t report their departure to state officials. There’s no requirement that they do so. South Carolina is not the People’s Socialist Republic of Albania. This actually poses no great problem, unless people commute back to South Carolina on election day just to cast a duplicate ballot. That seems rather unlikely. It’s hard enough to get voters to show up at their own designated polling places on election day. Eventually, they’ll no longer be on the DMV’s registered driver rolls, because they’re also unlikely to commute back to renew their licenses when they expire.

    They’ve got a problem with name mismatches? Surely South Carolina Attorney General “Al” Wilson can figure out why that might be. There’s also a tendency to change names owing to marriages and divorces.

    The premise behind all of this is that massive voter fraud is taking place on a national level, affecting the outcome of elections. The problem with the premise is that this has never been demonstrated. Demonstrated cases of voter fraud have been shown to be statistically insignificant, despite the fact that politically motivated people have been beating the bushes to find such cases. Registration irregularities do not equal election day voter fraud. Micky Mouse might have signed a registration application to fill somebody’s collection quota, but he’s never actually showed up later to cast a vote.

    Most people have no problem with tightening voter ID requirements. I’ve favored a national photo ID card for years. In the absence of that, I had no problem with the federal government mandating state photo ID and drivers license standards. What I and most democrats object to is the fact that formerly resistant republicans have suddenly got religion on the photo ID issue during the run up to historically important elections. Suddenly they’re in the mood to start asking everybody for their identity papers–the President of the United States included. Couple that with a flurry of restrictive new election and voting rules and calculated gerrymandering that will clearly have more effect on likely democratic voters than republican voters, and the underlying motive becomes clear.

    This isn’t about Obama stealing an election. It’s about keeping republicans from doing so. Yet again.

    ReplyReply
  6. Wm T Sherman says: 6

    @Greg: Would you give your explanation of how showing ID to vote enables Republicans to steal elections? Or, how it enabled Republicnas to steal elections in the past? Any elections at all?

    You wrote vaguely of a flurry of restrictive rules and of the gerrymandering that has happens every single time that districts are redrawn after a census, hinted darkly at motives, but gave no actual explanation of how requiring ID to vote will enable elections to be stolen by Republicans or anyone else.

    ReplyReply
  7. warner hyde says: 7

    It took eight years after both my parents passed away for them to be taken off the voter rolls.. Every election, when we went to vote i and my sisters would look down on the print out and they would still be on it.

    W

    ReplyReply
  8. Mike G. says: 8

    @Greg

    How hard is it for a person in South Carolina to go to the DMV and get a photo I.D.? Not very hard at all. In fact, it’s free if you can’t afford the five bucks it normally costs. By the way, it’s always been a requirement in SC to show a photo I.D. at the polls before voting. So Holder’s play to restrict South Carolinas’ new law is a moot point anyway. Unless of course, white conservatives are the only people that have to show a photo I.D. to vote.

    ReplyReply
  9. anticsrocks says: 9

    @Greggie: You said:

    Most people have no problem with tightening voter ID requirements.

    So then why the long-winded, meandering bloviation about why are are against requiring an ID to vote??

    Did you mean “most people” to not include yourself?

    And again, I ask you this question –

    Why is only discriminatory to ask for a valid photo ID to vote, but it isn’t to purchase alcohol, tobacco and even cold medicine?

    Surprise me Greggie, and answer that question.

    ReplyReply
  10. Greg says: 10

    The answer is already in the post. Consider it a Where’s Waldo puzzle.

    ReplyReply
  11. Bill Johnson says: 11

    Don’t validate their opinions. Take ‘em straight to court, as Georgia did. Don’t play Holder’s game. And wile we’re at it, a few extra lawsuits to take up a few bureaucraps time. In the computer world, it’s a ‘denial of service’ attack. Make ‘em so busy on our distractions, there aren’t enough resources to fsck with us.

    ReplyReply
  12. anticsrocks says: 12

    @Greggie: I didn’t think you had the balls to answer the question. You’re consistent Greggie, I’ll give you that. Your BS and denial of reality never falters.

    ReplyReply
  13. Ditto says: 13

    The state Department of Motor Vehicles audited a state Election Commission report that said 239,333 people were registered to vote but had no photo ID. The DMV found that 37,000 were deceased, more than 90,000 had moved to other states, and others had names not matched to IDs. That left only 27,000 people registered without a photo ID but who could vote by signing an affidavit as to their identity.

    One hopes that the State’s Election Commission and the DMV are actually using this information to systematically disenfranchise these people who are dead and no longer living in SC.

    ReplyReply
  14. Aqua says: 14

    @ anticsrocks:
    He answered it anticsrocks. He said:

    What I and most democrats object to is the fact that formerly resistant republicans have suddenly got religion on the photo ID issue during the run up to historically important elections.

    He thinks it’s a conspiracy.
    Greg, you confuse a national ID with State ID requirements. There is a big, big difference.

    ReplyReply
  15. Wm T Sherman says: 15

    Greg. You suck. I mean seriously, you’re no good at this at all.

    ReplyReply
  16. Greg J says: 16

    Funny how Holder cites Jim Crow laws (written by DEMOCRATS), Segregation (Pushed by DEMOCRATS until a REPUBLICAN forced them to open up), and the Civil Rights Act (which the DEMOCRATS fought tooth-and-nail against) to make his points.

    Personally I think every voter should get off their fat ass, go down to the registration office (not the DMV), and register in person, with photo-ID and proof of citizenship every 4 years. Unless they are physically disabled in which case a officer can go out to them (but they still need ID and proof).

    And then provide photo-Id when they actually vote.

    ReplyReply
  17. Pingback: BLACK CHURCH OWNS KKK SHOP? | Random Ramblings from IowaDawg

  18. Ditto
    hi,
    no wonder the SOUTH CAROLINE STATE WANT ID, and they have more than one reason for it too, this find is over the top, it’s incredible to have last for so long, IT’S WAY TIME TO REMEDY IT, AND WHO IS AGAINST IS OBVIOUSLY HIDING CROOKED IDEAS OF CORRUPTING ELECTIONS, THEY are against innovation also, because it is the up to date , and more precise in this coming most important election of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, it cannot go wrong, and they are right to want
    to fish out impostors in the system, which as shown to elect them by doing it themselves in a big way.
    and conspire to elect the wrong people and the anti AMERICANS PLOTTING TO CHANGE AMERICA FOREVER, BY INFILTRATING THE LEADERSHIP POSITIONS THEY WOULD HAVE NEVER GET WITH THE PHOTO ID SYSTEM
    BYE

    ReplyReply
  19. Dave B says: 18

    Oh NO!!!!! Get Holder on the line… A new Illinois state law requires… photo ID to purchase … get this… drain cleaners!!! Think of all the disenfanchised poor and minorities that will forever have clogged drains! Oh the humanity!!!

    ReplyReply
  20. Mike G. says: 19

    Ironic aint it Dave B.?

    ReplyReply
  21. Dave B
    HOLDER better know it’s line not to cross,, he has already cross it on GUN RUNNING,
    and it won’t work on VOTES RUNNING,

    ReplyReply
  22. Greg says: 21

    @Greg J, #16:

    Funny how Holder cites Jim Crow laws (written by DEMOCRATS), Segregation (Pushed by DEMOCRATS until a REPUBLICAN forced them to open up), and the Civil Rights Act (which the DEMOCRATS fought tooth-and-nail against) to make his points.

    I get weary of hearing that sort of misleading statement.

    Southern Democrats supported segregation. There was a strong identification with the Democratic Party among whites in the post-Civil War south because Lincoln was a Republican. Southern Democrats–pro-segregationists–were one of the groups that splintered off from the modern day Democratic Party because of the firm position President Lyndon Johnson took on desegregation. Where did they go? They turned into Republicans.

    ReplyReply
  23. anticsrocks says: 22

    @Greg: So because they were from the south, they weren’t affiliated with the Democratic Party?

    Gotcha

    ReplyReply
  24. Richard Wheeler says: 23

    The point is white Southern Segragationist Democrats changed parties and became white Southern Segragationist Republicans. Sen Strom Thurmond who went Dem. to Repub a leading example.

    ReplyReply
  25. anticsrocks says: 24

    @Richard Wheeler: And those “southern” Democrats that didn’t hop over to the GOP, what did they do?

    Didn’t they continue to fight against civil rights?

    ReplyReply
  26. Richard Wheeler says: 25

    Anticsrocks The simple answer is most remaining Dems. did not continue to fight civil rights to the extent the newly minted white Repubs did. Also as you know large % of Southern Dems are Black and therefore as you know Dems are now minority party in deep south. When’s the last time Miss., Alabama or South Carolina voted Dem. in a Pres. election?They consistantly voted Dem before white flight to Repubs.discussed above.

    ReplyReply
  27. anticsrocks says: 26

    @Richard Wheeler: So now you are saying that white Republicans led the fight against civil rights?

    Hmmm, history doesn’t bear that out.

    ReplyReply
  28. Richard Wheeler says: 27

    White NORTHERN Repubs and Dems led the fight for civil rights We all know this.

    ReplyReply
  29. anticsrocks says: 28

    @Richard Wheeler: And the fact that any of them were white matters…how?

    I mean the first black congressman wasn’t elected until 1870, so repeatedly stating that Republicans working for what would decades later be termed civil rights were white, matters only to those on the left who are obsessed with race.

    ReplyReply
  30. Richard Wheeler says: 29

    anticsrocks Pleeeze

    ReplyReply
  31. anticsrocks says: 30

    @Richard Wheeler: What? YOU are the one that keeps saying WHITE Republicans. Are you not?

    Your obsession with race is evident, RW.

    ReplyReply
  32. anticsrocks
    the libs come here and what they say is to try to tell the one reading HERE AT FA that we are the vilains,
    trying to paint a profile of extremist on CONSERVATIVES WHICH SHOW MORE TOLERANCE THAN THEIR PARTY BY A LONG SHOT
    and RICHARD IS A PRO ON IT he use a couple of words mixed with others or among other to try to expose or defame an opinion he get away with it because no one pay attention all the times only sometime, check what ANDREW WAS DOING WITH ME, AND RICHARD CUTTING IT WITH A COUPLE OF KEY WORDS, UNDERNEATH OTHER, IT’S a game they play,to put a trap on us,
    they focus on racist card to attack it on here to anyone posing an opinion on facts,
    they all do the same thing using different tricks, I find,
    and they are the one using the racist card to begin with,
    outrageous is in it. I notice it before and mention it now
    because you just caught him in the act this time.

    ReplyReply
  33. Richard Wheeler says: 32

    Born in Fla. 1944 raised in N.Y. in 50’s and 60’s I closely followed the civil rights movement and had high school and college friends who went South to march with King and others.While serving in V.N in 68 horrified by assassinations of MLK and RFK.
    Keeping it simple and P.C. In 50’s and into mid 60’s south was heavily Dem and segregationist. Northern Repubs. and Dems plus a few southern Dems. like LBJ led fight for passage of CRA in 64. After passage of CRA and continuing into the 70’s Segregationist Dems like Strom Thurmond Dem–R ’64 S.C. became Repubs, and south became overwhelmingly Repub. and remains so today.You fill in the blanks.

    BTW Greg is spot on in #21

    ReplyReply
  34. Well I think that people will already vote 4him theres no reason 2 do sum thing horrible lyke this

    ReplyReply
  35. Pingback: How a Republican President can undo everything Obama’s done [Reader Post] « ConservativeWatchNews.com

  36. Pingback: Penalizing you for not buying insurance is not a burden, but insisting on a free ID to vote IS a burden [Reader Post] | Flopping Aces

  37. Pingback: Penalizing you for not buying insurance is not a burden, but insisting on a free ID to vote IS a burden [Reader Post] | paulswansen.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>