Spring Offensive for the Obama Campaign: Fight State Laws That Ensure Fair Elections

© Miri WTPOTUS November 04, 2011

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) has published a very interesting article about what Robert Bauer is up to lately. You remember Bob, don’t you? 

Former White House (WH) counsel.  He who introduced the world to the real, authentic, three-dimensional, certified, long-form Obama birth certificate.  He who’s married to the lovely and mysterious, I-have-no-backstory, Mao-loving, former WH director of communications Anita Dunn.  He who belongs to that law firm, Perkins-Coie, that also employs as a partner Barack Hussein Obama II’s personal lawyer, Judith Corley, who is the only person [outside the HDOH staff] known to have actually possibly seen whatever it was that the Hawaiian Department of Health produced in April, which later on Bauer and other WH flunkies implied was scanned and placed on the White House blog as Obama’s birth certificate.  Yeah, that guy. Bob.

Well, he’s got a brand new gig. 

CHICAGO—The Obama re-election campaign has quietly opened a counteroffensive against Republican-backed changes to election laws that Democrats say will suppress votes for their candidates and limit their get-out-the-vote drives.

The effort, led by former White House counsel Robert Bauer, prompted the suspension of an Ohio law limiting early voting. Campaign officials produced educational materials to counter a Wisconsin law that requires voters to produce photo I.D.s—but disallows those used by Wisconsin colleges.

By this spring, the Obama re-election campaign will mount what Mr. Bauer called an unprecedented “voter protection” effort, fielding thousands of volunteers in battleground states to help navigate new election laws, months earlier than past efforts.

“We will look at what the state has done, look for ways to counter it, through litigation sometimes, through administrative interpretation sometimes. But beyond that, you have to have a program that actually goes out and shows voters what they need to do,” a senior Obama campaign official said.

Republicans see no precedent for a presidential re-election campaign to go this far to counter laws passed by state legislatures and signed by governors.

“It’s somewhat concerning that the president’s own team is seeking to undermine laws that ensure only registered voters actually vote,” said Sean Spicer, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee.

It’s VERY concerning. 

Despite that progressives believe that they speak for 99% of the population and that they also pretend to prefer pure democracy (the will of the majority), in this instance, they don’t care one whit what We the People want.  Recent polls show that three-fourths of the people WANT voter identification laws and believe sincerely that vote FRAUD is a greater danger than “suppressing” the votes of people without identification.

 Yet that doesn’t happen because in every case, these state laws allow for the casting of provisional ballots, so these undocumented voters are allowed to cast their ballots. The only difference, which must be what the progressives don’t like, is that those ballots are then subject to VERIFICATION that the voter is ELIGIBLE to vote. That is, no felons, no ILLEGAL aliens, no non-citizens, no dogs, no duplicate voters, no cartoon characters are allowed to cast ballots that cancel out legitimate votes of legitimate voters.

But that’s EXACTLY what progressives like Obama and Bauer want–to allow all those ineligible people to vote, because they overwhelmingly vote Democrat and thus swing elections, ILLEGALLY.  Unfairly. Undemocratically. Unconstitutionally.  

This should be no surprise, really. We already know what progressives believe about ELIGIBILITY.  It’s unfair that laws and the Constitution lay out RULES to which all must conform. This is a global community after all. Kumbaya.  When you have 20 million illegal aliens in the USA and they are prevented from illegally voting, what’s a progressive to do?

Does the reference to “litigation” remind you of the election of 2000? It should. 

How about “administrative interpretation?”  Now that should remind you of the George Soros Secretary of State Project.  That project is designed to place into these state offices George’s hand-picked candidates.  Soros uses his vast ill-gotten wealth to buy any Secretary of State office that he can.  All throughout the United States, his people will “interpret” state election laws in the way that George and other progressives want them to be interpreted, thus overriding the will of those who wrote the laws–the representatives of the People of the free and independent states. 

Does that remind you of unelected progressive judges reading into the “penumbra” of the Constitution their own ideas instead of recognizing the clear intent of the Founders? It should. 

In most states, the Secretary of State oversees the election process.  If Soros controls all Secretary of State offices, then Soros controls all U.S. elections.  If Soros, Bauer, and Obama tell them how to “interpret”, then you can bet that’s how these minions will interpret. And if anyone objects, why they’ll run out the clock past the election, and any subsequent court ruling, if it should go against them, will make the issue moot. Just as with Obama’s ineligibility. 

By the way, the aforementioned Judith Corley, disinterested Obama personal lawyer, recently wrote an article about that disastrous (to progressives) Supreme Court ruling that Obama SO HATES, urging Congress to enact a “fix” to get corporate money [but not Soros non-profit money] out of elections.  This just happens to be one of the gripes of the Poopstock Nation (otherwise known as OWS).  What a coincidence.

But Bauer isn’t the only one pressing this campaign to ensure vote fraud, by any means necessary.  We also have the reconstituted ACORN out there working to register “voters”. And we have Democrats in the House of Representatives piling on.  Is this a coordinated effort?  Pshaw!

House Democrats asked secretaries of state in all 50 states to oppose new voter identification laws because they threaten the right to vote for many Americans.

“Today we are witnessing a concerted effort by Republican lawmakers across several states to place a new obstacle in front of minorities, low-income families and young people who seek to exercise their right to vote,” said Steny Hoyer, the No. 2 Democrat in the House, said in a news conference Thursday. [11/3/2011]

The Democrats made the plea in a letter in which they ask the secretaries of state to put aside partisan considerations and be vigilant against fraud and protect access to the polls for all citizens. The letter had 196 House supporters Thursday, including delegates to U.S. territories.

Hoyer said states are trying to make it harder to vote through recently passed laws that require specific types of photo identification to cast ballots, reductions in the number of early voting days and tougher laws on collecting registrations.

Several states passed such laws over the past year and other states have considered them, saying they are targeting voter fraud. …

Many, though not all, of the recently passed laws have been sponsored and supported by Republicans. Democrats, whose constituencies include large numbers of minorities, students and some elderly, have decried the laws as throwbacks to the Jim Crow era.

Isn’t it special that our representatives in the U.S. Congress are interfering in the activities of elected officials in the free and INDEPENDENT states in this Republic?  It should be obvious that there are reasons why progressives MUST push back on these STATE laws:

1. Voter registration, formerly done by ACORN, is now under stricter scrutiny.  The new laws help ensure that there are no duplicate voters, voters registered at vacant lots, dogs on the voter rolls, and no Mickey Mouses or Donald Ducks, either. 

2. Early voting and absentee ballot restrictions help to ensure that we don’t see people, like STUDENTS, voting in one state in person and by absentee in another state.  Or early voting once and then voting again, in another location.

3. Voter identification ensures that people who have registered via motor voter (another travesty of justice) prove at the polls that they are ELIGIBLE to vote.  That is, prove they’re not non-citizens, illegal aliens, or felons. Or too young to vote!  A picture ID ensures that the person presenting at the polls is the person who’s legally registered to vote:  to ensure that nobody is casting votes in someone else’s name. 

Their argument that the “poor” don’t have identification doesn’t hold water because nearly all “poor” get government benefits, which require identification. The “elderly” tend to be on Medicare. Thus they, too, have identification.  Students should not be able to use school ID cards because they don’t prove that a student is eligible to vote. Non-citizens go to our schools, too.  More from the WSJ story:

Rod Smith, chairman of the Florida Democratic Party, said his office coordinates daily with the Obama campaign on how to encourage older voters, college students and African Americans to vote by absentee ballot.

Why?  So there’s less scrutiny?  Why should the elderly vote absentee?  So staffers in nursing homes can fill out the ballots for every client, voting for the Obama of the staffers’ choice? 

Let me repeat that a vast majority of the PEOPLE of the United States want these voter identification laws to be passed and enforced.  Just as the majority of the People want our immigration laws enforced.  We have an administration, a candidate for reelection, and a political party that not only do not want laws enforced but also want to interfere in the business of states in how they go about enforcing laws.  As officers of the court, lawyers who engage in such counteroffensives should be ashamed.  Consider that word:  Counteroffensive.  Deliberately creating an offensive strike AGAINST election laws in the 50 (not 57) states.  Aren’t officers of the court sworn to uphold the LAW?

Of course, after the LFCOLB debacle, nothing should surprise us. 

By any means necessary.  Their mantra. 

Note:  My imprecise, sarcastic language was corrected, in red, on 11/5/11 as a result of a comment by astute reader azgo who pointed out that Judith Corley picked up the copies, but they may have been in a sealed envelope. h/t azgo.