Obama Pitches for Manditory Voting


Thanks to Activist Post for this illustrative picture.

As reported to the Gateway Pundit and Fox News, President Obama argued that requiring all American citizens to vote would counteract the effects of big money.

In order to do our best job of rightly dividing his words, lets respond to each of the president’s statements.

“I don’t think I have ever said this publicly, but I am going to go ahead and say it now.”  Maybe this should not have been said then, since we all know:

“Even fools are thought wise if they keep silent, and discerning if they hold their tongues.” (Proverbs 17:28 NIV)


“We shouldn’t be making it harder to vote, we should be making it easier to vote.”  If, Mr. President, you are talking about how Democrats blocked a vote on a bill that would have protected the women who are victims of sex slavery, I could not agree with you more.  If you are talking about the Democrat move to block your unconstitutional executive memo, I would again completely agree with you.  However, if you are talking about states who have passed voter id laws (where minority voting has increased after the passage of those laws), I can only say that I support laws that make it more difficult to steal the votes of law-abiding citizens.

“And, um,  what I haven’t … I have said that publicly before.” So, Mr. President, are you making light of purposely lying two sentences ago?

“So, my Justice Department is going to be vigorous in terms of trying to enforce voting rights.”  So I take it that Mr. Holder will finally be prosecuting the New Black Panther Party for their 2008 suppression of voters’ rights.

“I gave a speech down in Selma at the 50th anniversary that was incredibly moving for me and my daughters.”  No matter what assessment you make of your own speech, your voter base seems to have spoken against you.

“And the notion that — this day and age — we would be deliberately trying to restrict the franchise makes no sense.” Yes, Mr. Obama.  It made no sense when the Democrat National Committee and Ohio Democrats sued to keep Ohio military members from voting.  It made no sense in 2010 when your administration delayed actions that would have allowed the U.S. military in Guam to vote.  It made no sense when Democrats disenfranchised Florida military members.  However, since much of this disenfranchisement starts with you, maybe you can explain it.

“At the state and local levels, you can push back against that and make sure that we are expanding the franchise and not restricting it.”  Yes, Mr. Obama, working in the political process can be the best way to affect change in our nation (as long as the president does not choose to refuse to enforce the law or override law through executive order).

“In Australia and other countries, there is mandatory voting.”  Yes, Mr. President.  But do you want to take us the way of Latin America (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay)?  Or do you want to take us down the road toward the now-bankrupt European-style socialist country (Australia, Belgium, Greece, and Luxembourg)?  Did you want to model America around countries of the Middle East (Egypt and Lebanon)?  Or were you intending to turn America into the totalitarian regimes of Asia and Africa (Congo, Nauru, Singapore, and Thailand)?

“It would be, it would be transformative if everybody voted.” It would be transformative because we could no longer be called “the land of the free.”

“That would counteract money more than anything.” Really, Mr. President?  In states where low-information voters have been the key to elections, political spending has skyrocketed.  Additionally, in the event that your phone and pen were considering another executive order, you should warn them that anyone who comes to the polls by the force of law may not be a low-information voter, but might be a very angered voter.

“If, if everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country, because the people who tend not to vote are young.  They’re lower income.”  Yes, Mr. President.  And we know that those who are on the social safety net plantation and those who are newly out of the educational plantation tend to vote Democrat.

“They are skewed more heavily to immigrant groups and minority groups.”  However, since many of these immigrant groups are loyal members of Christian churches and organizations you have fought (Little Sisters of the Poor, Notre Dame, etc), you might not get the voting bump that you want.

“Um … and they’re often they’re often the folks that are scratching and climbing to get into the middle class.  And they’re working hard … “ Still, Mr. President, you might not want to count your chickens before they hatch.

“There is a reason why some folks want to keep them away from the polls.  We should want to get them into the polls.” Of course, when you mention “some folks,” you are talking about Democrat authors of Jim Crow and military apartheid, aren’t you?

“So that may be a better strategy, in the short term.” Mr. President, are you talking about “short term (until the low-information voters find they have been Grubered)” or “short term (until the nation is bankrupt)?”

Obama and then Ginsburg Both Correct the Record Regarding Voter ID


First Obama appeared on Al Sharpton’s radio show that aired on 21 October 2014 where Obama admitted:

“Well, we’re going to keep on challenging many of these laws. But keep in mind that most of these laws are not preventing the overwhelming majority of folks who don’t vote from voting.

Most people do have an ID. Most people do have a driver’s license. Most people can get to the polls. It may not be as convenient and maybe a little more difficult, it may be a few people who are impeded. And if you go to iwillvote.com, it’ll give you information also on (whether) somebody is unfairly preventing you from voting, but the bottom line is, if less than half of our folks vote, these laws aren’t preventing the other half from not voting.

Next came the revelation from Justice Ginsberg that she had included incorrect information (that is, factual error or — if it was intentional — a lie) in her dissent to last week’s Supreme Court order allowing Texas to implement its voter-identification law in the 2014 mid-term election.  On 22 October, Justice Ginsberg divulged that her dissent had included an error of fact and that she had corrected the opinion on the Supreme Court website. Normally, justices correct mistakes on the website and in the official report without making a public announcement. However, due to Harvard law professor Richard Lazarus’ article (available in PDF) on the court’s practice of making hidden corrections that might be viewed as substantial, Justice Ginsburg announced that

“page 4 of the dissent contained an error. Photo identification cards issued by the U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs, the Texas Secretary of State’s office confirmed, are an acceptable form of photo identification for voting in Texas. Accordingly, the Justice deleted the following sentence from the dissent: ‘Nor will Texas accept photo ID cards issued by the U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs.’ There are also small stylistic changes on pages 2 and 4. The opinion has been updated on the Court’s website.