Obama's REAL Voter Suppression: Our Military

Obama and his (in)justice department have been out in full force attempting to strike down state laws which would require a photo ID to vote.  These laws are deemed "racist" by the Obama administration because they feel that it disenfranchises minorities who evidently don't think voting is important enough to go to the DMV and obtain a free ID. 

But, needing a photo ID in order to get on an airplane, buy alcohol or cash a check is fine. 


While we have been distracted by this non-story, the focus has been taken away from the REAL voter suppression which is going on in this country against our own military.


Obama knew after he was first elected that he needed to plan ahead for his reelection campaign.  He knew that while he enjoyed 54% of the military vote in 2008, that it was an anomaly as generally, military votes tend to lean Republican.  This time around, polls suggest Romney has a 58% approval rating amongst military members while Obama is pulling a mere 34%. 

 

So, how do you suppress the military vote?

You pass the M.O.V.E. Act.  (Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act) which was one of the first things Obama did once he took office in 2009.

The MOVE Act requires the Pentagon to create an “installation voting assistance office” (IVAO) for every military base close to a combat zone.  (Shouldn't the DoD be tasked with focusing on our DEFENSE?)  IVAOs are supposed to help military personnel and make it easier for them to register to vote.  But IVAOs can’t help anybody vote if they don’t even exist.  See, Congress PASSED the M.O.V.E. Act, they just didn't FUND it.

But, that was kind of the plan, wasn't it?  Over promise, under deliver.  

A recent report by the Department of Defense’s inspector general found that in half of the 229 overseas military installations the DoD hadn’t set up the IVAO facilities that the law mandates.  The DoD inspector general tried to contact each one of the 229 offices listed on the military's own voting assistance website. It only managed to get ahold of 114, less than 50 percent.


Pam Mitchell, the interim director of the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP), told reporters that there's an explanation for that.  She said,

 

"The contact information they used very simply was outdated.  In a military environment, things change. Phone numbers change, email addresses change."

She doesn't know the phone number or email for half of our military bases?

So, how do you resolve this problem?

 

You do what the Obama administration always does...grant waivers.

The Defense Department has granted waivers to states that claim to be unable to mail absentee ballots to soldiers in the required 45 days before Election Day in order to ensure that the ballots will have time to be mailed back. 

It is no surprise to learn that in 2010 all the jurisdictions that received waivers under the MOVE Act were won by President Obama in the 2008 election. (Delaware, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Washington). 


Then we have the Department of Justice/Civil Rights Division to make sure that the newly passed law is being properly implemented, headed by Eric Holder.  THIS  Eric Holder:

As a freshman at Columbia University in 1970, future Attorney General Eric Holder participated in a five-day occupation of an abandoned Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) headquarters with a group of black students later described by the university’s Black Students’ Organization as “armed,” The Daily Caller has learned.

What could possibly go wrong?


 Tom Perez from the Civil Rights division said,

 

"People who are serving our nation should have the right to cast a ballot and ensure that that ballot is counted.  And so we will continue to vigilantly enforce [the] law to make sure that happens."

 

He SOUNDS tough.  But then you look at his actions which speak louder than his words.

Let's see how Perez enforced the law in Illinois.  In 2010, the democratically controlled state failed to mail ballots to its military members in nearly 1/3 of the state's counties.  Perez allowed 6 of the 35 counties who were not in compliance to extend the postmark deadline one whole day, from November 1 to November 2.  Voters in the other 29 counties were out of luck.


Disgusted by the actions of the Department of Justice, three House Republicans, including Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith of Texas and Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Howard McKeon of California, wrote a letter to Perez saying public records and media reports "have painted a picture of widespread noncompliance" with the MOVE Act that was "aided and abetted by an enforcement authority that is entirely ineffective."

They continued:

"What we find most troubling about this situation is the Department of Justice, which has the sole and exclusive authority to bring actions to enforce [the law], not only failed to ensure compliance but apparently was not even aware when widespread noncompliance occurred."

Probably because Perez was too busy helping illegal alien sympathizers sue Arizona over alleged "racial profiling" and fighting to drop voter suppression cases involving the Black Panthers.


Fast forward to 2012.


The number of absentee ballots requested by military members has seen a SIGNIFICANT drop from previous years.  And by significant, we mean game-changing.

Percent of military members requesting absentee ballots in 2012:

Florida  15.7%
Alaska  7.6%
Nevada  6.8%
Louisiana  6.4%
Colorado  6.2%
Illinois  5.3%
Ohio  3.3%
North Carolina  1.7%
Virginia 1.4%


Let's take a closer look at the numbers.  The first number is the number of absentee ballot requests from 2008.  The second number is for 2012:

Florida        86,926/37,953
Alaska         11,882/3878
Nevada           4919/1750
Louisiana        6796/1983
Colorado        5104/2986
Illinois            9858/3532
Ohio             13,317/1806
North Carolina 13,508/1859
Virginia           20,738/1746


To put these numbers in perspective, there are a total of 116,393 FEWER ballots requested and potential votes cast in 2012 compared to 2008.  If Romney maintains his 58% military support, that means roughly 67,500 FEWER votes he will be able to receive.


This would translate to a loss of the following votes for Romney:

Florida    -28,000
Nevada      -1800
Colorado    -1200
Ohio           -6675
North Carolina   -6750
Virginia     -11,000


Is it any coincidence that most of the states listed above are swing states?  Currently, these states show only a 1-2% difference in the polls between Romney and Obama.  Don't forget, Florida went to George W. Bush by only a few hundred votes. 


Aside from the obvious contempt that Obama has towards our military, why is there such an attempt to silence the military vote?

 

Because, soldiers can’t fight back.

The military can't openly complain about their Commander-in-Chief and they are too busy fighting for our freedom and our right to vote.


http://www.heroesvote.org/

Voter ID Discriminates Against Who Again?

Some cities allow non-citizens to vote in local elections like school boards, mayors or city councils. 

This is a slippery slope. 

Those who are not citizens are using the argument "Non citizens hold down jobs, pay taxes, own businesses, volunteer in the community and serve in the military, and it's only fair they be allowed to vote."

Non citizens?  Notice the lack of clarity in the statement.  It is against the law for an illegal non citizen to hold down a job, own a business and even serve in the military.

As a side-note:  We have noticed that AZ Central recently has started referring to illegals as "Mexican Nationals" instead of their usual "undocumented immigrant".  "Mexican National" is probably the latest approved focus group term meant to distract from a person's implied status and blur the line between legal and illegal.  Look to see more of this term used going forward.

Fair?

Alexander Hamilton said,

...voting at elections is one of the most important rights...and in a republic ought to stand foremost in the estimation of the law.

We have seen a wave of cries to push for easier access to the ballot box and to allow ALL of those who are in our country, including non-citizens, the opportunity to vote in our Country's elections. 

This is the same line of thinking as our often mentioned friend, Jason LeVecke, when he stated,

Immigrants are among the most conservative, family-value oriented freedom-loving folks in our society.  The great crime, in my opinion, is they can't vote because if they could, we'd have an even better country.

LEGAL, NATURALIZED citizens CAN vote in our elections.  However, Mr. LeVecke obviously is referring to those either in the country illegally or those here as residents but not citizens.


Washington said to Alexander Hamilton,

If a foreign power can tell America 'what we shall do, and what we shall not do', we have Independence yet to seek, and have contended hitherto for very little.

We have now seen attacks on those states who have dared to introduce laws that would require proof of who you are in order to vote so as to not disenfranchise the vote of others.  We can thank groups like ACORN for the need to bring integrity back to our sacred voting system.

Their logic?

Voter ID is discriminatory.

Here is an example of the logic explained:

...(Texas) found that 600,000-800,000 REGISTERED voters didn't have the required ID and those were disproportionately Hispanic. 

(There are approximately 1.7 million illegals in the state of Texas.  The US Department of Justice estimates that 175,000 and 304,000 registered Latino Texas voters lack driver's licenses or other state-issued IDs.)  

Moreover, getting that FREE ID would be very difficult.  There's a cost to getting the ID and the supporting documents such as a birth certificate.  It costs $22.00. 

 That's a poll tax. 

Ari Berman is a writer for THE NATION, a left-wing propaganda online magazine.  He also wrote a piece for Rolling Stone where he claimed,

Just as Dixiecrats once used poll taxes and literacy tests to bar black Southerners from voting, a new crop of GOP governors and state legislators has passed a series of seemingly disconnected measures that could prevent millions of students, minorities, immigrants, ex-convicts and the elderly from casting ballots.

Seems some ex-cons have been charged with committing voter fraud in 2008.

RICHMOND, Va. --

A Richmond grand jury indicted 10 convicted felons on charges of election fraud for allegedly lying on voter registration forms during the 2008 presidential election campaign.

1.  Photo ID is equated to a POLL TAX?

By that logic, why aren't these same people claiming that the money someone would pay to become a naturalized citizen would ALSO be classified as a poll tax?  After all, one of the privileges of being a naturalized citizen is the right to vote.  Which brings us to the point...doesn't someone receive a certificate of naturalization when they go through the legal citizenship process?  Isn't this one of the forms of acceptable GOVERNMENT ISSUED ID that these states are daring to require?  

2.  Why not complain about the cost of obtaining a copy of your birth certificate to the government entity that is charging for the service and ultimately, "disenfranchising" the people?  According to the US Government , your birth certificate may be required when applying for a job.  (Except, evidently, for the job of President of the United States.)  A birth certificate in many cases is required in order to obtain or renew a driver’s license.  In Arizona, one can receive a State issued ID for $12.00.  Do these same people feel inconvenienced when they have to show a government issued photo ID (or ANY kind of photo ID) in order to get on an airplane?  Or cash a check?  Or buy alcohol?  Or get in to a rated R movie?  Obama's own state of Illinois requires a GOVERNMENT ISSUED photo ID in order to buy drain cleaner.  But, showing an ID to vote is off limits?

4.  Is even FREE ID not acceptable?  Somehow, I would imagine that if we held the person's hand, personally drove them to the government office to get their FREE ID, that would not be acceptable enough.  Why?  Because they don't have anything to document that they are in the country legally?  That's really the meat of the matter.  It's not the dollar value.  It's not even the time that it takes to get to a government office to obtain the ID.  It's about taking advantage of and disregarding our country's laws. 

Texas is one of the four majority minority states in the Country.  Hispanics in particular are a growing political force and what this ID does is that it suppresses the turnout of those minority voters and it tries to make sure that white Republicans rule the state even though Texas is increasingly diverse and  increasingly minority.

WHITE REPUBLICANS RULE THE STATE?!?!?

What an insult to those NON WHITE Republicans in the state.

Who are the ones being racist again? 

Ari continues...

One rather humorous aspect of the new law that is disturbing is that in Texas, according to the voter ID law, you can vote with a handgun permit, but you can't vote with a student ID.

If you look at who owns guns in Texas, they are more likely to be Republican.  If you look at students in Texas, they are more likely to be Democrat or progressive in origin.  So this voter law is really about making sure Texas stays Republican for the next decade.

Student IDs aren't acceptable proof of citizenship thanks to the DREAM ACT activists for reminding us that they are not here legally but still want to reap the benefits of LEGAL citizens.  Just ask Daniel. Rodriguez.  He admitted at a Saul Alinsky IAF affiliate (Phoenix First Congregational United Church of Christ) that he is an illegal citizen and wants the benefits of in state tuition at ASU.  Rodriguez is also organizing a MoveOn.org sponsored Occupy training meeting on April 14th called Moving Together with the 99% and Immigration. 

So here's the logic:

If you are a Republican in Texas = gun toting nut job. 

If you are a Democrat in Texas = intellectually educated and smarter than gun toting nut jobs.

I would LOVE to see where he came up with his statistics.

Here are OUR statistics:

You can view the state-wide Texas election results for the 2010 General election here. The majority of races were won by Republicans (by 65-85%).

University of Austin:

Asian  17%

Hispanic  16%

White  58%

Austin, TX Ethnicity:

Asian   4.7%

Hispanic  30.5%

White   65.4%

Texas A&M

Asian  3.5%

Hispanic  11%

White  80%

College Station, TX Ethnicity:

Asian  7.3%

Hispanic  10%

White  80.5%

Texas A&M

In the 2008 semester, Texas A&M was the seventh largest American university with an enrollment of 48,039 students. Texas residents account for 86% of the student population, and 28.9% are either of international origin or members of ethnic minority groups.
Although Texas A&M is a secular institution, its student body has a reputation for being religious and CONSERVATIVE.

University of Houston:
Asian  20.5%
Hispanic  20.8%
White   36%

Houston, TX Ethnicity
Asian  5%
Hispanic  37%
White   49%

Non resident aliens for the state schools comprised of about 1.5 - 5% of the enrollment.  So, a large majority of students were in-state.

How does one come to the conclusion that voting age students in Texas are predominately Democrats and progressive?
Again, The majority of races in Texas were won by Republicans (by 65-85%).

An inconvenient truth:
Poll: More than half of Texas registered voters support Arizona-style immigration legislation

And another.

Paging Al Gore.....