In the Weekly Republican Address, Florida Senator Marco Rubio explains the failures of the Obama administration. He contrasts those with the promise of America that he and Republicans believe in, if the government stops doing the wrong things.

Sen. Rubio says, “As you know, earlier this week, President Obama delivered his fourth annual address to Congress. It was an opportunity for the President to talk about his accomplishments over the last three years and to lay out his plans for the year ahead.

“And he missed on both counts.

“You didn’t hear much talk about the success of his Administration—and that’s because there isn’t much.

Via Verum Serum: Video: Obama Touts Investment in EnerDel, Now Bankrupt:

This one is short, but sweet – via Moonbattery: Who Is Rachel Maddow?

Rush Limbaugh Defends Rick Santorum, Takes Newt To Task:

Via Gateway Pundit: “The Debt Generation”, created by Tennessee College Students.

Last week, in Georgia, birthers had their day in court:

Obama May Be Left Off Of Georgia Ballot For Ineligibility:

Orly Taitz at Obama Ballot Challenge Court Hearing January 26, 2012:

The Birther’s Victory In Atlanta Court:

SEE ALSO:

Cindy Simpson and Alan P. Halbert at The American Thinker: Georgia Ballot Challenge: Obama Walks On By:

Under Georgia law, the Secretary of State had properly deferred the ballot challenges to the OSAH for the court’s opinion, and the determination of whether or not Obama’s name will appear on the Georgia ballot ultimately rests with the Secretary.

Regardless of the outcome in Georgia, it appears that Obama has openly shown his disregard for the laws of that state.  According to Irion, Obama has also “decided that he is above the Courts, the law, and the Constitution. He has just indicated…that he is not subject to their authority.  This is the true story from today, yet almost no one will report it.”

Obama has deliberately turned his back, and walked on by.

Lying is a sin. Lying in order to smear a man’s good name is an abomination. I don’t care if you’re doing it in the interest of saving the Republic or whatever – because you think  your guy is the only one who can defeat ‘President Spread-the-Wealth’ in the general. For the Romney crowd to be trying to paint Newt Gingrich as some kind of rabid anti-Reagan crusader when he was anything but – is proof positive that this bitter primary season is going off the rails, already, and some of the candidates and their surrogates need to have their knuckles roundly rapped with a ruler.

I posted an excerpt from Abrams’ piece, yesterday, believing it was written in good faith because he has a  sterling reputation. I was confused, because it was flying in the face of everything I knew to be true about Newt, and I have been following his career since the early ’90s. Yesterday, I  posted everything that was coming out about Gingrich - the good, bad and ugly – because I’m still trying to make up my mind about supporting him.  I’ve updated it several times since it was posted as more pundits weigh in.

Via Legal Insurrection, according to Jeffrey Lord at The American Spectator, that Elliot Abrams piece in National Review, the other day,  was a gross distortion of  how Gingrich treated Reagan in his speeches.

Yesterday we took note of former Reagan State Department official Elliott Abrams’ piece over at NRO that went after Newt Gingrich on his relationship with Reagan. While voting regularly with Reagan as a young congressman from Georgia, Gingrich, claimed Abrams, “often spewed insulting rhetoric at Reagan, his top aides and his policies to defeat Communism.” Abrams then goes on to cite ” a famous floor statement Gingrich made on March 21, 1986.”

Or sort of cites it.

In fact, I’m sorry to say, what appears to be going on here is that Elliott Abrams, a considerably admirable public servant and a very smart guy, has been swept up in the GOP Establishment’s Romney frothings over the rise of Newt Gingrich in the Republican primaries. He is even being accused of trolling for a job in a Romney administration. No way!!!! Really????

What else can possibly explain a piece like the one Abrams penned on a day when Gingrich was being of a mysterious sudden targeted in one hit piece after another for his ties to Reagan? The pieces invariably following the Romney line that Newt had some version of nothing to do with Reagan.

A piece like the one Abrams wrote depends for its success in garnering headlines — which it did — by assuming no one will bother to get into the weeds and do the homework. Usually a safe assumption when dealing with the mainstream media, particularly a mainstream media that, as one with Establishment Republicans, hates Newt Gingrich.

Not so fast.

Due to the diligence of one Chris Scheve of a group called Aqua Terra Strategies in Washington, Mr. Abrams has been caught red-handed in lending himself to this attempted Romney hit job.

Mr. Scheve, you see, is himself a former foreign policy aide to none other than Speaker Newt Gingrich in his days as Speaker. While now out on his own and not working for Gingrich, Scheve is considerably conversant with the Gingrich foreign policy record.

Uh-oh.

That’s right. Mr. Scheve, incensed at what he felt was a deliberate misrepresentation of his old boss by Abrams and the Romney forces, specifically of Gingrich’s long ago March 21, 1986 “Special Order” speech on the floor of the House, and aware “that most of his [Abrams'] comments had to have been selectively taken from the special order” — Scheve started digging. Since the Congressional Record for 1986 was difficult to obtain electronically, Scheve trekked to the George Mason Library to physically track down the March 21, 1986 edition of the Congressional Record. Locating it, copying and scanning, he was kind enough to send to me.

You need to go to The American Spectator to read the whole thing, but here’s one of the more shameful distortions:

• Abrams quotes Newt for saying in this speech that Reagan’s policies towards the Soviets are “inadequate and will ultimately fail.” This is shameful. Why? Here’s what Newt said — in full and in context:

“The fact is that George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Irving Kristol, and Jeane Kirkpatrick are right in pointing out the enormous gap between President Reagan’s strong rhetoric, which is adequate, and his administration’s weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail.”

In other words, Newt was picking up on a concern, prominent in the day and voiced by no less than Reagan’s then ex-UN Ambassador Kirkpatrick, not to mention prominent Reagan supporters Will and Kristol and the late-Mondale aide turned conservative Krauthammer, that Reagan’s anti-Communist policies could be stronger if better institutionalized and not tied as much to the Reagan persona. The entire speech focused on suggestions of how to do just that — to effectively institutionalize Reagan’s conservative beliefs in the government. Is Abrams seriously accusing Jeane Kirkpatrick and George Will of being anti-Reagan? Of spewing “insulting rhetoric” at a president everyone in Washington knew they staunchly supported? Really? Of course not. But in apparent service to the Romney campaign, in order to make Newt Gingrich appear to be doing just that, Abrams apparently quite deliberately cut out the original Gingrich reference to Will, Kirkpatrick, Krauthammer, and Kristol.

What gall Romney has to question the “Reagan conservative” creds of Gingrich, when he himself cravenly backed away from supporting Reagan when he had the opportunity to do so. As Lord says, the attacks on Gingrich are not only not true, but laughably untrue.

I wish I could laugh.

UPDATE!

Sarah Palin feels exactly the same way I do – read her latest post on her FB page: Cannibals in GOP Establishment Employ Tactics of the Left

I didn’t want to say it – but she did. Tactics of the left. I’ve saw the headlines this week about the Romneys being Alinsky fans, or something, but I never got around to reading them. Tactics like what we’ve been seeing throughout this campaign, and especially in Florida are pure Alinsky. I almost alluded to it in my post. Something really smells, here.

I hope that this outrageous smear marks a turning point in the campaign. I don’t know if I can find a clothing pin tight enough to block my nasal passages  from the stench of this particular candidate when it comes time to vote.

We have witnessed something very disturbing this week. The Republican establishment which fought Ronald Reagan in the 1970s and which continues to fight the grassroots Tea Party movement today has adopted the tactics of the left in using the media and the politics of personal destruction to attack an opponent.

We will look back on this week and realize that something changed. I have given numerous interviews wherein I espoused the benefits of thorough vetting during aggressive contested primary elections, but this week’s tactics aren’t what I meant. Those who claim allegiance to Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment should stop and think about where we are today. Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, the fathers of the modern conservative movement, would be ashamed of us in this primary. Let me make clear that I have no problem with the routine rough and tumble of a heated campaign. As I said at the first Tea Party convention two years ago, I am in favor of contested primaries and healthy, pointed debate. They help focus candidates and the electorate. I have fought in tough and heated contested primaries myself. But what we have seen in Florida this week is beyond the pale. It was unprecedented in GOP primaries. I’ve seen it before – heck, I lived it before – but not in a GOP primary race.

I am sadly too familiar with these tactics because they were used against the GOP ticket in 2008. The left seeks to single someone out and destroy his or her record and reputation and family using the media as a channel to dump handpicked and half-baked campaign opposition research on the public. The difference in 2008 was that I was largely unknown to the American public, so they had no way of differentiating between the lies and the truth. All of it came at them at once as “facts” about me. But Newt Gingrich is known to us – both the good and the bad.

Keep reading…

I found Mitt’s peevish admonition, “First of all, it’s not worth getting angry about…” to be a vain and  transparent attempt to exploit the (fair or unfair) perception that Santorum comes off as whiny  in debates.  He should save the snide put-downs for Obama, who really is a whiny, thin skinned SCOAMF.

See The Right Scoop for a longer, better  version of this exchange.

MORE:

Another great moment for Santorum: “Lets stop with petty personal attacks!

UPDATE:

Philip Klein: The Washington Examiner: Santorum wins debate, but Romney beats Newt:

I was busy with other things tonight, so I only listened on and off to part of the debate on the radio (on a one-hour delay), so I haven’t had an opinion on who did best. Klein thought it was a bad night for Gingrich,  a strong night for Romney, but Santorum ran away with it. Based on the YouTube videos I’ve seen, that certainly sounds about right:

… there were at least two problematic moments for him (Romney). The first came when he claimed to have never seen an anti-Gingrich attack ad that actually ends with him approving the message. And the second, much more significant moment, was when Rick Santorum scorched him on his health care record.

Santorum didn’t just offer a grazing attack of Romneycare like many other candidates have in prior debates. He got very specific. He noted that it was top-down government control — from the mandate forcing individuals to purchase health insurance to the expansion of Medicaid. And when Romney tried to wiggle away, and  defended the individual mandate making the same arguments as President Obama, Santorum pinned him down, explaining all the problems with the health care system in Massachusetts under the law. Romney’s response to Santorum’s passionate case against government-run health care was to say, “It’s not worth getting angry about,” which was a dagger in the back of conservatives who have spent the last several years fighting a government takeover of the largest (and most personal) sector of the U.S. economy. It was a clear reminder to conservatives of why they’ve been so reluctant to get behind Romney to the point that they’d be considering the deeply flawed Gingrich.

Besides sticking it to Romney, Santorum had strong answers on almost every question — on Latin America, on not throwing away too much money on the space program, and on why rights are God-given rather than granted by government.

Can we please give Santorum a second look?

One more clip: Santorum: Faith Is An Important Part Of This Country:

Michelle Malkin: Confirmed: Romneycare = Obamacare:

I repeat: RomneyCare and ObamaCare share not only the same ideological architects, but similar waiver programs in part set up to benefit Big Labor.

***

Industrial-strength nose plugs can’t cover the stench.

RedState’s Erick Erickson thinks Mitt won the debate, but Santorum had the best night- if that makes any sense:

Mitt Romney won the debate. He and Gingrich behaved like petulant children, but Romney got under Newt’s skin in a way Newt did not get under Romney’s skin and Newt came off looking the lesser of the two. Additionally, Mitt Romney finally offered up a bold and clear answer on his wealth with a strong defense of capitalism and self-made men. There was no apology and no defense. It was precisely what he needed to do.

Though he may have won, Rick Santorum had the best night of any candidate and though Romney won on points, Santorum won on style and substance. He offered up the strongest attack yet on Romneycare, pointing out how if Romney is the nominee we cede an important line of attack on Obamacare. He rattled Romney in a way Newt did not. He acted like the adult in the room. He got himself some supporters from Newt Gingrich I’m pretty sure.

Michelle Malkin’s thoughts: Fly Them To The Moon, Please:

Big gainer: Santorum.

Big surprise: Paul’s likeability factor, even if he is completely on the moon when it comes to Israel, jihadists, and national security.

Big, unchanged reality: Big Government Romney, Big Government Gingrich, and Not As Big A Government As He Voted For When He Was in the Senate But Still Too Big Government Santorum.

The journey/march/slog (towards a brokered convention??????) continues…

Meanwhile….to motivate you to the polls:

ABC News: President Obama: I Want Second Term ‘Badly’

Hat tip: Brian B.

Linked by Ushanka, thanks!

This week, the KS Secretary of State, Kris Kobach has been updating the legislature and educating the public on the S.A.F.E. Act, the photo ID voting laws he spearheaded. It was passed in the Kansas Senate, last March with a large bi-partisan majority (36-3). Two thirds of the provisions have already gone into effect, the last third – the proof of citizenship requirement – was amended for unknown reasons *cough* 2012 election *cough* to take effect January 2013. Kobach is pushing hard to have that moved up to June  of this year, but as you can imagine, liberals are pushing back, hard.

Here’s Kobach making his case in the Topeka Capital Journal: Elections Must Be Secure:

Last year, the Legislature enacted the Secure and Fair Elections (SAFE) Act, which was drafted by my office. The SAFE Act combines three elements: a requirement that voters present photo IDs when they vote in person; a requirement that voters who vote by mail present a full driver’s license number and have their signatures verified; and a proof of citizenship requirement for all newly registered voters.

The first two provisions are already in effect. The third — the proof of citizenship requirement — was drafted to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2012, but a Senate committee last year inserted an amendment to delay it until Jan. 1, 2013. I have asked the Legislature to move the starting date up to June 15, 2012, in order to prevent additional aliens from being registered to vote in Kansas.

In a Jan. 16 editorial, The Topeka Capital-Journal editorial board argued that the state should wait until after the 2012 elections to implement the proof of citizenship requirement. The editorial board’s arguments are faulty on numerous fronts.

First, the editorial board claimed that election fraud is not a problem that needs to be addressed in Kansas. The facts say otherwise. In Kansas, 234 incidents of voter fraud were reported between 1997 and the 2010 elections.

In addition, last year my office discovered 32 aliens who were registered to vote in Kansas, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. When the total number is calculated, it will likely be in the hundreds. In Colorado, the secretary of state’s office recently identified 11,805 aliens illegally registered to vote in the state, of whom 4,947 voted in the 2010 elections. In Kansas too, some of the aliens who are on our voter rolls voted.

The editorial board claimed that this is a harmless problem that never skews election results. Here too, they failed to do their research. When the SAFE Act was before the Legislature last year, the Cowley County clerk testified about a shocking case of aliens being used to manipulate an election.

In 1997, a ballot issue was before voters concerning whether to allow a particular type of hog farming operation in the county. A few weeks before the election, a bus full of individuals believed to be aliens rolled up to the county clerk’s office, where they were unloaded and told to register to vote. The clerk realized what was happening, but she was powerless to stop it. Under Kansas law at the time, the clerk had to allow them to register as long as they filled out and signed their registration cards.

Another incident happened in 2010, just across the state line. In the 2010 state representative race in Kansas City, Mo., between J.J. Rizzo and Will Royster, the election was allegedly stolen when Rizzo received approximately 50 votes illegally cast by citizens of Somalia. According to eyewitnesses, the Somalis, who didn’t speak English, were coached to vote in his favor by an “interpreter” at the polling place. The margin of victory? One vote.

Finish reading at CJ Journal.

Jack Cashill wrote at length about the Somali case which happened during the 2010 Democrat primary: Will Somali Pirates Hijack The Election?

The Drudge headline for the past couple of days says it all with the worst slam you can make against a Republican:

It links to Elliot Abrams’ devastating piece at NRO which makes the case that Gingrich repeatedly assaulted the Reagan administration with criticism “just as Democratic attacks were heating up unmercifully”. Abrams, who was  an assistant secretary of state in the Reagan Administration and deputy national security adviser in the George W. Bush Administration, wrote:

…as a visionary, Gingrich does not have a very impressive record. The Soviet Union was beginning to collapse, just as Reagan had believed it must. The expansion of its empire had been thwarted. The policies Gingrich thought so weak and indeed “pathetic” worked, and Ronald Reagan turned out to be a far better student of history and politics than Gingrich.

The second point to make is that Gingrich made these assaults on the Reagan administration just as Democratic attacks were heating up unmercifully. Far from becoming a reliable voice for Reagan policy and the struggle against the Soviets, Gingrich took on Reagan and his administration. It appears to be a habit: He did the same to George W. Bush when Bush was making the toughest and most controversial decision of his presidency — the surge in Iraq. Bush was opposed by many of the top generals, by some Republican leaders who feared the surge would hurt in the 2008 elections, and of course by a slew of Democrats and media commentators. Here again Gingrich provided no support for his party’s embattled president, testifying as a private citizen in 2007 that the strategy was “inadequate,” contained “breathtaking” gaps, lacked “synergism” (whatever that means), and was “very disappointing.” What did Gingrich propose? Among other things, a 50 percent increase in the budget of the State Department.

Gingrich scorned Reagan’s speeches, which moved a party and then a nation, because “the president of the United States cannot discipline himself to use the correct language.” In Afghanistan, Reagan’s policy was marked by “impotence [and] incompetence.” Thus Gingrich concluded as he surveyed five years of Reagan in power that “we have been losing the struggle with the Soviet empire.” Reagan did not know what he was doing, and “it is precisely at the vision and strategy levels that the Soviet empire today is superior to the free world.”

Perhaps not coincidentally,  a short excerpt of a 1988 C-SPAN video of Newt Gingrich supposedly bashing Ronald Reagan is currently making the rounds. Dan Riehl has discovered that said  Video Of Newt Bashing Reagan Is Bogus.

What you don’t see is immediately after when Gingrich praises Reaganism and the Reagan platform.

Does Gingrich at times, have “diarrhea of the mouth”? Yes, we knew that already. But when push came to shove, was Gingrich always in Reagan’s corner? Jeffrey Lord, who also worked in the Reagan administration, writes in The American Spectator, a resounding, “yes”, calling Gingrich, “Reagan’s young lieutenant”:

…time after time after time in the Reagan years, a number of those times which I had the opportunity to see up close as a young Reagan staffer charged in my duties with being the White House liaison to Gingrich and Kemp’s Conservative Opportunity Society, Newt Gingrich was out there again and again and again for Ronald Reagan and conservative principles. In his own memoirs, The Politics of Diplomacy, James Baker noted of his days as Reagan White House Chief of Staff that he always “worked closely” with the people Baker described as “congressional leaders.” And who were those leaders? Baker runs off a string of names of the older leaders of both House and Senate in the formal positions of power — plus one. That’s right: young Newt Gingrich.

Gingrich repeatedly demonstrated a considerable ability to illustrate conservative principle, help Reagan using events of the day. Here were two notable examples.

Read on. It’s a long piece, but you need to read it all.

This video from 1995 via Professor Jacobson of Legal Insurrection, shows Nancy Reagan at a Goldwater Institute Dinner honoring Ronald Reagan, handing over the conservative torch from her husband to Newt Gingrich.

I should note that Nancy Reagan was well known for being  a ferocious defender of her husband. If you crossed Ronnie, you were off the reservation, and yet:

No one has been more vocal opponent of Newt Gingrich in recent weeks than Ann Coulter. She has been all over the airwaves warning Republican voters that if Gingrich wins the nomination, Obama is a shoo-in to win the general election. He has too much baggage, his negatives are too high, he’s not really conservative, etc, etc. In her latest screed, posted yesterday, she makes her case again, making brilliant points, as usual: RE-ELECT OBAMA: VOTE NEWT!

– Romney is now the only remaining candidate for president who opposes amnesty for illegals. (Ever since President Bush’s amnesty plan cratered on the shoals of public opposition, no Republican will ever use the word “amnesty,” despite wanting to keep illegals here — just as Democrats refuse to say “abortion,” while supporting every manner of destroying human life.)

Romney supports E-Verify and a fence on the border. As governor he promoted English immersion programs for immigrants, signed an agreement with the federal government allowing state troopers to enforce federal immigration laws, and opposed efforts to give illegal immigrants in-state tuition or driver’s licenses.

At the same time, Romney says he’d like to staple a green card to the diploma of every immigrant here on a student visa who gets a higher degree in math or science.

Gingrich supports importing a slave labor force from Mexico under a “guest worker” program and wants to create government “citizen review boards” to grant amnesty on a case-by-case basis (i.e. all at once) to illegal aliens.

– Romney supports entitlement reform along the lines of the Paul Ryan plan, as he has said plainly, but without histrionics, in the debates.

Just last year, Gingrich went on “Meet the Press” and called Ryan’s plan — supported by nearly every House Republican — “right-wing social engineering.”

He apologized for those remarks, then took back his apology, still later doubled down, calling the Ryan plan “suicide,” and now — currently, but it could change any minute — Gingrich supports Ryan’s entitlement reform efforts.

For the latest updates on Newt’s position on the Ryan plan, go to http//twitter.com/#whatcheapshotgrandstandymovewillworknow?

Those are all good points, and I respect her opinion, but she was singing a completely different tune at CPAC 2011. Perhaps this is a cheap shot because that was a whole year ago – the field has changed, and Ann is a strategic thinker, but she said what she said: “If Christie Doesn’t Run, Romney Will be Nominated and Lose to Obama”:

This just goes to show you how much an opinion can change over a year’s times. Pamela Geller provides another example of this – in reverse.

True story: Last year at CPAC, I went up to the stage take some pictures of Gingrich while he was speaking. As he was leaving the stage, he shook the hands of the people closest by, mine being among them.  When I got back to the bloggers lounge, I mentioned to the people around me, “hey, Newt Gingrich just shook my hand!” and Pamela immediately shot back, “Did you wash it?”

Geller has gone from being firmly against Newt, a year ago, to firmly supporting him, today: Gingrich: The SOB we need.

Newt Gingrich’s victory in Saturday’s South Carolina primary means that we are still alive.

Gingrich really won the primary in the first five minutes of Friday night’s debate, when he challenged John King of CNN. King opened the debate trying to press forward the media’s campaign of destruction of Gingrich, using the 13-year-old slings and arrows of a still-bitter ex-wife. The best thing about the exchange was that Newt turned the tables with the speed and skill of a black belt and put the media on the defensive. It was brilliant, a defining moment. And the crowd cheered. People are fed up.

The country needs a tough fighter. There is a war on the American people; we are under attack from within, and the Republican establishment has been meek, cowed, defeated. Gingrich is fierce. We need a fighter to go toe-to-toe against the silver-tongued snake in the White House.

***

Yes, Gingrich has much to answer for. Yet while Newt has an inconsistent history, he seems a man of the time. He knows what America needs: He sees the threats from within and without, and he is pulling no punches. Romney is not strong enough for the coming battle. Newt may be an SOB, but he’s our SOB. And we need an SOB to defeat the snake in the White House.

 Investor’s Business Daily made the same point in:  Gingrich Looking Churchillian In Political Comeback:

Leadership: A great debater. Politically polarizing. Prone to great error, but also prone to spectacular success. Steeped in history. Politically brilliant. Unorthodox. Audacious.

All these qualities were once used to describe Winston Churchill. Today, you might use the same words to describe Newt Gingrich. Sound absurd? Not when you think about it.

Churchill, like Gingrich, was a brilliant politician with a powerful sense of the occasion.

Sometimes prickly, often witty, but never dull, his career had lots of ups and downs — ranging from being blamed for the disastrous Gallipoli campaign in World War I to being credited as the father of the British welfare state — not exactly a compliment among conservatives, then or now.

Indeed, by Churchill’s own admission, “The Conservatives have never liked nor trusted me.” The same thing can be said of Gingrich, who has had a tortured relationship with the GOP’s conservative wing, to say the least.

And yet, when his nation called on him to lead in 1940, Churchill was ready — the right man for the right time. With America’s government under President Obama moving rapidly to the extreme left, Gingrich too might be the right man for the right time.

But — John from Verum Serum, who has been inclined to support Newt, finds reason to believe Newt may not be the right man for any time. Such rank dishonesty can only be described as “Clintonesque” or “Obama-like”, and conservatives should not be put into the position of having to defend it: Newt Didn’t Offer Witnesses to ABC as Claimed During SC Debate?

Gah!

I want to support Newt, I really do….but Romney or a brokered convention are looking better and better to me.

UPDATE:

Yuval Levin at the Corner: ‘An Empty Bucket in His Hand’:

Wherein Levin explains Bob Dole’s sneer about Newt Gingrich and his “empty bucket”. Dole seems to have missed the point.

One could point to any number of erratic, undisciplined, and peculiar statements or actions by Newt Gingrich during his speakership. He was in many ways a disastrous manager and leader. But Dole’s example in his statement today reflects more poorly on Dole than on Gingrich, I’d say. And putting out this statement from Dole frankly doesn’t reflect well on the political judgment of the Romney campaign.

Mark Levin is, by his own admission, no special pleader for Newt Gingrich and he says that we can certainly criticize Gingrich on substance. But he says to count him out among those that are trashing Gingrich. In fact, he opened the show saying that if this trashing of Newt Gingrich is what the conservative movement has come to, then count him out.

“It’s time to stand up- it’s time to speak out” sings Ava Aston, a recording artist from New York who was moved to write the song out of  her frustration of what she saw happening in our country since the Obama  administration took office.

Via Atlas Shrugs:

The Politico characterizes this moment between the President and the Governor of AZ, one of the states his Dept. of Justice is suing, as “tense”:

President Obama, alighting from the stairs of Air Force One in Phoenix this afternoon, was greeted by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who handed him an envelope and the two exchanged what appeared to be some heated sentiments. At one point, she pointed her finger at him.

Asked afterward what happened, Brewer said, “He was a little disturbed about my book, Scorpions for Breakfast.

“I said to him that I have all the respect in the world for the office of the president. The book is what the book is. I asked him if he read the book. He said he read the excerpt,” she said, according to a pool report. “He didn’t feel that I had treated him cordially. I said I was sorry he felt that way but I didn’t get my sentence finished. Anyway, we’re glad he’s here. I’ll regroup.”

In the envelope she had given him was a handwritten letter, Brewer said – ”an invitation that I’ve extended to him before with regards to coming to Arizona and going to the border with me….We’ve had a remarkable comeback here and I want to share that with him.”

A White House official confirmed the invitation and described the encounter in more bureaucratic terms: “The President said he’d be glad to meet with her again, but did note that after their last meeting, a cordial discussion in the Oval Office, the governor inaccurately described the meeting in her book. The President looks forward to continuing taking steps to help Arizona’s economy grow.”

The Politico’s pool reporter says Obama walked away from the Governor while she was still talking.

What she said in the book was that he had a condescending, lecturing attitude with her when she visited the White House to  discuss border security and immigration issues,  if you can believe that!

I had the pleasure of meeting Governor Brewer when she was the keynote speaker at the 36th Biennial NFRW Convention in Kansas City,  last Fall.

She gave a spirited speech which was very well received:

She started off by crediting her single mother with raising her to appreciate hard work, responsibility, honesty, integrity, and courage. She spoke of the mess she inherited from Janet Napolitano, and took great delight in announcing the fact that she was able to balance the budget in less than three years. She is well qualified to go after the President for his ruinous, and illogical policies.

While touting her book, Scorpions For Breakfast, she also talked about being sued by the Obama administration and called his jobs bill “a ketch-up pop-cycle.”

UPDATE:

Newt weighs in on the tense moment:

Local News coverage of the incident:

SEE ALSO:

This is why I was feeling deja-vu!

The Weekly Standard: Thou Shalt Not Write Bad Things About Obama:

Bobby Jindal got the same treatment when Obama came to visit Louisiana and the governor met him on the tarmac. Jindal would later recount in his book:

I was expecting words of concern about the oil spill, worry about the pending ecological disaster, and words of confidence about how the federal government was here to help. Or perhaps he was going to vent about BP’s slow response. But no, the president was upset about something else. And he wanted to talk about, well, food stamps. Actually, he wanted to talk about a letter that my administration had sent to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack a day earlier.

The letter was rudimentary, bureaucratic, and ordinary. .  .  . We were simply asking the federal government to authorize food stamps for those who were now unemployed because of the oil spill. Governors regularly make these sorts of requests to the federal government when facing disaster.

But somehow, for some reason, President Obama had personalized this. And he was upset.

Linked by Pirate’s Cove, Right Wing News, Stop The ACLU, and Wizbang, thanks!

Hat tip: Weasel Zippers

Cunningham informed the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee through his attorney that he would use the Fifth Amendment protection after being subpoenaed last week to testify in front of congressional investigators regarding his role in the operation that sent more than 2,000 guns to the Sinaloa drug cartel. Guns from the failed operation were found at the murder scene of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in 2010.

 Committee Chairman Darrell Issa called the decision a “startling development” and in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder wrote that the refusal to testify implies that “Mr. Cunningham may have engaged in criminal conduct with respect to Fast and Furious is a major escalation of the department’s culpability.”

Issa said Justice Department officials claim Cunningham misinformed them about Fast and Furious as the department prepared its initial response to Congress’ inquiry into the failed program. Cunningham’s lawyer denies those allegations.

Cunningham was excused from the deposition, but may be called again later, according to the letter. The committee may also issue additional requests or subpoenas for Cunningham’s associates in the U.S. Attorney’s office.

Rep. Trey Gowdy on Cunningham Refusing to Testify on Fast and Furious:

Ginny Simone talks to Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) – NRA News – January 23, 2012 – http://www.NRANews.com – http://www.NRANews.com:

Lots of dissatisfaction with the ultra slow pace of the IG investigation, which at some point, Gowdy seems to hint may need to be investigated, itself:

Linked by Doug Ross, Daily Pundit, and AoSHQ thanks!

SEE ALSO:

AWR Hawkins at Big Government on the State of AZ’s decision to launch its own investigation of Fast and Furious. Citizens want answers and they’re not getting them from the federal government.

David Codrea, Gun Rights Examiner: What have been effects of politics and new media on ‘Gunwalker’?

The President’s porcine and thuggish campaign manager, Jim Messina, has unintentionally afforded me an opportunity to engage in one of my favorite past times - comparing the ragtag collection of confused/violent/radical malcontents who make up the Occupy movement to the benign, patriotic, and genuinely peaceful tea party.

Here is his latest fundraising letter, via Weasel Zippers:

Last night, the President went to Congress and defined in clear terms what we’re going to be fighting for in the months ahead.

That means that right now, it’s on us to get his back and work like hell to build this campaign. If we want to see this President re-elected, it’s time:

Add your name and say you’re standing with the President — and our shared vision for this country.

We don’t know which Republican is going to be our opponent yet, but here’s what we do know: Whoever wins the Republican nomination will have done so by adopting the extreme Tea Party agenda.

Whatever could he mean by the “extreme” tea party agenda?

Here is Jenny Beth Martin of The Tea Party Patriots, voicing her “extremist” support for fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets in response to Obama’s SOTU speech. . I’ve already posted this, but in case you missed it:

So, wow – yeah – that was pretty scary. God help us all if extreme principles like those are ever adopted by any Republican in government.

Meanwhile, here’s the Obamacrat endorsed Occupy Wall Street manifesto of “demands”:

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending “Freetrade” by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

Demand four: Free college education.

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America’s nuclear power plants.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the “Books.” World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the “Books.” And I don’t mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.

Yes, just to be clear, Democrats have openly and enthusiastically endorsed these out of the closet Marxists. See The #OWS Hall Of Shame: Democrats Who Support/Supported The Occupy Wall Street Movement for a non-exhaustive list. This is not your parents’ Democrat party – it has swung to the hard left in recent years, and the most extreme leftist wing of the Democrat party now occupies the White House.

So for the party that is in the process of destroying our capitalist system in the name of  “fundamentally transforming” our nation, to be calling people who want to get back to fiscal responsibility and a constitutional form of government, “extremists” is just too rich.

“If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard,” Messina once instructed Obama supporters. I believe in punching back twice as hard, rhetorically.

The Obamcrat mob, not so much. Here, once again, created and kept updated by the Jawas, is the Tea Party Versus (Dem endorsed)#Occupy Checklist:

They’ve got a hell of a nerve trying to paint the tea party as “extremist”  under these circumstances.

PS: There are some interesting opinions on the Messina photo, above, shared in Weasel Zippers’ comment section.

What’s really pathetic is that both Houses of Congress and the Supreme Court have to sit there and pretend they’re riveted by this b.s.

Kudos to http://www.GOP.com for putting that out so quickly. I saw it on Youtube, last night, only an hour or two after the speech. I have no idea how they did it so fast…

Herman Cain, speaking at the National Press Club, gave a spirited response to Obama’s nakedly partisan State of the Union address.

“Mr President, put the word united back into the United States of America.” he admonished. “Stop the class warfare…Discourage your surrogates from making racial innuendos….Stop the attacks on business. …Stop the attacks on citizens by making government to big, and most of all, stop the blame game.

“We need another revolution, this time it will not be about bombs and bullets, it’s gonna be about brains and ballots at the ballot box, ” he stated.

MORE:

Via IndianaPatriot, the Tea Party Patriot’s State of the Union response:

Sadly, we have a President who will not give either of these views the time of day. He’s 2/3rds of the way done transforming our nation…..into his dystopian, Marxist vision for the United States.

And in case you missed this, last night, here’s IN Governor Mitch Daniels’ excellent response:

Daniels is currently being urged to reconsider a  run for president:

Dissatisfied with the current crop of presidential candidates, some Republicans still want Indiana’s governor and the former director of the Office of Management and Budget to make a late entry into the race.

Since a petition was put online Saturday night at www.runmitchrun.com, it accumulated almost 7,000 signatures as of noon Tuesday.

The effort also has a Facebook page called “Run, Mitch, Run.” It is not immediately clear who is leading the effort. Among those still publicly saying they wish Daniels were running is conservative columnist Bill Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard magazine.

A Daniels staffer said he does not expect his boss to change his mind.

JACOB TURK’S RESPONSE TO THE PRESIDENT’S STATE OF THE UNION

“The President has had 3 years to grow the economy and put people back to work.  Unemployment has been above 8% for 35 months.  It is much higher among African-Americans.  This is not acceptable.  Employers are not hiring because this administration has created so many new regulations, raising the cost of doing business and making it nearly impossible for small businesses to get loans.”

“As a father, I am deeply concerned about the debt we are leaving our children.  We need to cut spending so that we can keep our promises to seniors, keep our military strong and ensure our nation’s fiscal stability.”

“As a Marine veteran, I appreciate the President’s thanking of the troops for their service.”

“The President’s call for unity needs to be followed up with action, not just rhetoric.  I’m glad to learn that, like me, he supports ending insider trading in Washington.”

###

 Jacob Turk- Republican for Missouri’s 5^th District. We believe representatives must listen to all. Lead with integrity. Protect life and property. Champion opportunity. Leadership. Not politics.

Hat tip: Charles B.

Republican candidate for Missouri’s 5th district, Jacob Turk issued a press release denouncing the Obama administration’s creation of a hotline to help illegals fight deportation,  launched between Christmas and News Years when few people were paying attention to the news.

Kansas City, Missouri- Today, Jacob Turk, Republican candidate for Missouri’s 5^th district denounced the Obama administration’s creation of a hotline to help illegals fight deportation.

“This is a waste of taxpayer resources.  The federal government should not be using funds to help illegal immigrants fight deportation.  It sends the wrong message that we are not serious about securing our borders,” said Turk.

The Homeland Security Department has launched a toll free hot line that is staffed 24 hours a day.  Personnel from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement man the line to answer questions on how to fight deportation.  The hotline number is (855) 448-6903.

“Taxpayer funds should be used to help our legal citizens or pay down the debt.  It shouldn’t be used to help keep people who broke our laws in the country,” said Turk.

Turk supports the Obama administration’s Secure Communities program that helps expedite the deportation of criminal illegal immigrants by granting local law enforcement access to fingerprint databases making it easier to identify who is in this country illegally.  The program is supposed to quickly deport illegal immigrants who have further broken our laws and are violent offenders.  It is a way of making our streets safer.  Turk believes that the new hotline established by Homeland Security completely undermines the program.

Turk suggests that these funds would be better spent on securing the borders than giving advice to illegal immigrants on how to circumvent American law.

Having come very close to defeating Congressman Emanuel Cleaver in 2010 and closer than any Republican in the 5^th district since 1946, Turk is in a strong position to defeat the incumbent next November.

Jacob Turk has been a resident of the 5^th Congressional District for 31 years. After completing his Marine Corps service, Turk attended college thanks to the GI Bill, earning a Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Missouri. After owning his own small business for 12 years, Turk went to work for the National Association of Insurance Commissioners as a programmer and analyst in the research department. Jacob holds the principles of our Constitution and our nation most dear:  a nation founded by the ideals of free enterprise, freedom of speech and religious expression; where one can rise from poverty to prosperity in a single generation through hard work and determination; where people are free to succeed and free to fail.

###

Jacob Turk- Republican for Missouri’s 5^th District. We believe representatives must listen to all. Lead with integrity. Protect life and property. Champion opportunity. Leadership. Not politics.

Previously:

Video: Jacob Turk Announces Candidacy For Congress (MO-5)

The Washington Examiner editors,  reminiscing about the 2010 SOTU, write:

Tossing political barbs at Supreme Court justices during a nationally televised speech is one thing. It’s something else entirely for a sitting president to point a justly accusing finger at the Senate majority leader who will be seated nearby. This is especially the case when both men are Democrats and despite the fact that today marks the 1,000th day since the Senate Democratic majority he leads approved a federal budget.

The federal government still managed to pile nearly $4 trillion onto the national debt as the Senate dithered during those 1,000 days. The Senate forced the federal government to function piecemeal for three years through a series of haphazardly stitched-together omnibus bills and continuing resolutions. These bring together in one massive document trillions in spending and borrowing that can then be jammed through Congress with one convenient up-or-down vote, with only token debate and few if any amendments allowed. It’s Washington’s nice and tidy way of handing voters a take-it-or-leave-it approach to federal spending.

***

Ryan and Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, challenged Obama on Monday to “hold his own party accountable for its dogged refusal” to produce a budget.

Don’t hold your breath, gentlemen.

And here’s The Foundry hammering the same point in; 1,000 Days Without a Senate Budget: It’s amazing what you can do in 1,000 days:

Joseph Curl of The Washington Times plays the blame game:

There is one person — one American among the 300 million of us — who is not to blame for the state of the union. Everyone else, each of you, in some small or large way, bears some share of the blame, but not this guy. Not one little bit.

This guy is Barack Obama. He is not the least bit to blame for the dismal state of the U.S. economy. George W. Bush is, for sure, and that evil Dick Cheney, oh, no doubt. House Speaker John A. Boehner — evil, too — is, of course, to blame. But guess what? So is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, and every Democrat in the House and Senate.

Finish reading at the link…

CNN’s Jack Cafferty explores What Obama Won’t Mention During The SOTU:

 Get your Food Stamp President bumper-stickerswhile they’re hot!

American Crossroads:

In advance of the State of the Union, our new web video shows the true state of the middle class under President Obama’s failed leadership.

Claire McCaskill Joins the U.S. Senate (January 2007):  144,841

Claire McCaskill Supports Obama’s Failed Economic Policies (December 2011):  245,249

100,408 More Missourians Out-of-Work

With the news today that Missouri’s unemployment rate remains unacceptably high, we are once again reminded how the middle class has suffered under the big government agenda of Barack Obama and Claire McCaskill.  Despite what might be said in speeches or press releases, the middle class has dramatically suffered under the barrage of failed economic policies pursued by Obama and McCaskill.  Whether it was the failed stimulus package or bailouts, Obama and McCaskill have focused on government-expanding policies instead of real economic solutions to create jobs for Missouri’s middle class.

Weasel Zippers: Rep. Doug Lamborn Boycotting Obama’s State of The Union Address…

“The president is in full campaign mode and will use the address as an opportunity to bash his political opponents.”

Damon W. Root of Reason asks: Should Supreme Court Justices Attend the State of the Union?:

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito skipped last year’s State of the Union Address so he could give a speech in Hawaii, though his absence was perhaps also inspired by his annoyance at President Barack Obama during the 2010 address, where Alito famously mouthed the words “not true” when Obama misstated the facts about the Court’s Citizens United decision. But that’s all water under the bridge, right? Won’t Alito at least turn up for tomorrow night’s State of the Union proceedings? Don’t count on it, writes Adam Liptak of The New York Times, who notes that Alito thinks the whole State of the Union format is ripe for abuse.

SOTU FLASHBACK via Weasel Zippers: Flashback: Obama Touts Solyndra During 2010 State Of The Union…

I dare him to tout his green energy programs, tonight. Republicans should come armed with rotten fruit.

Update: They will be coming armed with these.

WHD’s Keith Koffler asks, “are we living in a Banana Republic?:

That’s what Wall Street Journal Latin American affairs columnist Mary Anastasia O’Grady, who covers Banana Republics for the newspaper, wants to know.

In a column published today, O’Grady accuses Obama of UNMITIGATED CYNICISM AND ABUSE OF POWER in his handling of the Keystone XL pipeline, suggesting his behavior is worthy of the Chavistas and likely to chill future investors in U.S. infrastructure.

Like all Banana Republic satraps, this one is claiming perfect adherence to the laws of the land, even as he bends them for his own political ends.

The White House has been piously intoning that the decision to reject the pipeline arises from nothing less than its fanatical devotion to proper procedure, preaching the line that the State Department must perform its due diligence and analyze the environmental impact of a new route for the project through Nebraska.

But . . .well . . . the State Department is only analyzing the new route because it decided it didn’t want to accept the results of its own three year analysis of the old route, which determined that it wouldn’t ugly up Nebraska a single bit.

This is exactly what happens in Banana Republics, where they say things like, “I don’t like the results of this election! Let’s have a new election!”

Pamela Geller, The American Thinker: New Docs Reveal How DOJ Kowtows to Muslim Brotherhood

Neither cold temperatures nor pouring rain seemed to dampen the spirits of the tens of thousands who gathered for the annual March for Life in Washington on Monday. The march serves as an annual pro-life response to the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s landmark decision legalizing abortion in the U.S.

A number of lawmakers spoke at the rally launching the march, which began on the National Mall and proceeded several blocks to the steps of the Supreme Court. House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, vowed to continue standing with pro-life advocates.

“We are heeding the voice of the people who overwhelmingly oppose taxpayer funding of abortion,” he said.

Though Boehner made clear he doesn’t believe being anti-abortion is a political position, many of the marchers said they view abortion as a key election year issue. The Rev. Frank Pavone, who heads Priests for Life, says 2012 is critical.

“You’re going to hear a lot of talk about getting ready for the elections and increasing the pro-life numbers that we have in the House and Senate and, of course, the White House,” he said.

House Speaker John A. Boehner addresses the crowd at the March for Life rally in Washington. (Brendan Hoffman / Getty Images / January 23, 2012)

Via Charlie Spiering of The Washington Examiner:

Boehner highlighted a bi-partisan House bill passed to codify the Hyde Amendment across the entire government, banning taxpayer funds from supporting abortion.

“I’ve never considered being pro-life a label or a political position, its just who I am.” said Boehner, “Its not just that I am pro-life its that we as a people are pro-life.” he said.

As always, he got just a little choked up talking about his eleven brothers and sisters, but he plowed on.

Yes, he can be maddeningly ineffective at times, but I love this man:

Sick… Obama Says Abortion “Enables Our Daughters” to “Fulfill Their Dreams”:

Barack Obama released a statemtent this past weekend on the 39th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade Decision. Obama said abortion “enabled our daughters” to “fulfill their dreams.”
Sick.

Catholic News Service reported on the strong youth presence at this year’s march:

Organizers said they believe the event attracted more participants than last year’s estimated 400,000.

The march was held one day after the 39th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in the United States.

The Daily Caller’s Michelle Fields tweeted: This is by far the biggest protest I’ve ever been to in my life #MarchForLife

***

Matt Menendez, age 20, is the president of Harvard right to life. He explained that although the United States is largely pro-life, there are only a small minority of students at Harvard “who are willing to speak up” in defense of life.

“We’re always fighting an uphill battle,” he said. While the work is “very difficult,” it is also “very, very rewarding.”

He said that the group regularly receives calls and emails “from people who say they’re afraid to be prolife.”

Menendez described the group’s work as “fighting an intellectual battle” in the hopes of “opening discourse” on a topic that is considered somewhat “taboo” and is “often ignored” at Harvard.

“It’s really energizing to be part of that movement,” he said.

Luciana Milano, another member of Harvard’s right to life group, attended the march for the first time this year.  She explained that attending Harvard strengthened her pro-life views because she was forced to defend her beliefs to those who disagreed with her.

She said that although the experience “has been difficult,” it has made her “a stronger believer” in the dignity of all human life.”

Describing the march as “awesome,” Milano said that she was impressed and overwhelmed by the large number of people attending the event.

“The second that I saw large amounts of people, I almost cried,” she said.

Video of  The Youth Rally and Mass for Life via The Washington Times:

Here’s pro life legend,  Father Frank Pavone, being interviewed at the March for Life:

Update:

Via Just a Conservative Girl, Congressman Allen West’s speech was short but sweet:

UPDATE II:

The Anchoress: Pro-Lifers and the Truth-Phobic Press:

Watching yesterday on EWTN, I heard estimates of nearly half-million people marching peacefully and cheerfully, in the freezing rain, in support of life, which is — at its core, as Tim Muldoon writes — a march in support of love:

***

Unfortunately, the “big picture” is hard to come by, particularly if you’re looking for “big pictures” of this well-attended march. We have reached a remarkable era of photojournalism, as demonstrated by the once-noble Washington Post — one where a half million people can march, the headlines can call it “thousands” and the pictures show you none of it.

Someone asked me on Twitter, “why don’t they just report the truth” and I thought, “because they have given themselves wholly over to a lie, and they fear the truth. Having built up the lie for so long that it’s become their foundation, they know they cannot withstand an assault by the truth.”

So they have become truth-phobics, our mainstream media. They can’t tell you the truth about anything, anymore — they can only do whatever it takes to sustain the narratives they’ve constructed.

That’s why you hear no reports about Fast and Furious, or a member of the DOJ pleading the Fifth about that. It’s why you don’t hear about Solyndra and the “green jobs” myth it’s why you hear no caterwauling from the press about the fact that we are 1000 days into this administration without a budget.

You want the truth? You think you deserve it? The press can’t handle the truth; they can’t bring it to you.

Keep reading….

For MORE pictures and reportage, see St. Blogustine:

Including “vulgar, obscene, loud-mouthed, pro-abortion occupiers”:

Linked by Adrienne, and Mommy Life, thanks!

]]> http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/over-400000-march-for-life-in-washington-dc-pics-and-videos/feed/ 17 Nice Deb March for Life 160055620-23145717 Aj3LEA-CQAEh3oL DSC00493 http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/kansas-dem-argues-new-voter-id-law-will-deny-more-legitimate-votes-than-catch-fraudulant-votes/ http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/kansas-dem-argues-new-voter-id-law-will-deny-more-legitimate-votes-than-catch-fraudulant-votes/#comments Tue, 24 Jan 2012 03:05:32 +0000 nicedeb http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/?p=44579 ]]> ANDY MARSO/THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL-Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach testifies on new voter ID laws Monday in the House Elections Committee.

What is it about voter integrity laws that get Democrats so nervous?  Why do they think their constituents will be disproportionately affected by the simple requirements of proof of citizenship and picture IDs?

Secretary of State, Kris Kobach, appeared before the KS House Elections Committee, Monday, in the first leg of a three-day tour to update lawmakers and the public on the photo ID voting laws he spearheaded. A Democrat legislator from Topeka, Ann Mah, was harshly critical of of the new regulations in the the S.A.F.E. Act, which was passed in the Kansas Senate, last March with a large bi-partisan majority (36-3).

CJ Online reported on the the Clash between Kobach and Mah.

On Monday, she asked Kobach if there would be any provisions for determining the number of voters rejected for not having a valid photo ID.

Mah said she expects the 41 instances of possible fraud Kobach said he uncovered in the 2010 election will “pale in comparison” to the number of legal voters turned away with a provisional ballot.

“It’s gonna be way out of whack,” Mah said. “That’s my guess. I’d be willing to put a $5 bill down on it, but in November we’ll be able to see the data if we capture the data and do the analysis on it.”

Kobach said there’s nothing in the regulations that requires that, but his office is collecting the data anyway.

***

The new law that Kobach wants moved up is the one that requires people registering to vote for the first time in Kansas to provide proof of their U.S. citizenship. It is scheduled to take effect in January 2013, and Kobach wants to make it effective June 15.

Kobach said the first test of the photo ID law, a local election in Cimarron, was wildly successful. He said voter turnout was nearly 40 percent and of the almost 500 people who showed up to vote, only one did not have a photo ID. Kobach said that woman intentionally did not bring her ID to “make a statement” about her opposition to the requirement.

Rep. Melody McCray-Miller, D-Wichita, asked Kobach if Cimarron was a valid “test run” given that historically the groups most disenfranchised by voting laws are racial and ethnic minorities.

“Cimarron does not look like Wichita and it certainly doesn’t look like Kansas City, Kansas, and I know it doesn’t look like Hutchinson,” McCray-Miller said.

According to the 2010 census, 84 percent of Gray County residents are white and non-Hispanic, versus 78 percent throughout the state. The largest disparity between the county and the state comes in its African-American population, which is 0.4 percent compared to 5.9 percent throughout the state.

The argument coming from Democrats really seems to be that minorities are not as capable as whites at getting picture I.D.s. If I were a minority, I think I’d be insulted. While Democrats worry about hypothetical disenfranchisement,  real cases of voter fraud in the state go unprosecuted.

Mah said she wanted to talk more in the future about the 41 allegedly fraudulent votes in 2010, which she said included double-voting by “snowbirds” and felons who may have regained their voting rights.

Kobach said he referred all 41 cases to prosecutors, but none have been acted on yet.

“For whatever reason it often gets put to the bottom of the stack,” he said. “I hope that all 41 are (prosecuted), but at this point it has not happened.”