I & I Editorial BoardThe Democrats have been making desperate arguments against voter ID legislation, including claims that it will disenfranchise married women due to their name change. Naturally, they’ve left out the part about Barack Obama launching his political career by using the name change of a married woman in his successful attempt to have all his opponents kicked off the ballot and run unopposed.
The SAVE Act, which has been passed by the House and is heavily supported by the public but is stalled in the Republican Senate, simply “requires individuals to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote, and requires photo identification to vote, in federal elections.” It does not establish a poll tax, a literacy test, nor pre-19th Amendment restrictions to disenfranchise women.
Yet New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer has repeatedly called it Jim Crow 2.0 because in his fevered all-for-the-party mind it “has nothing to do with protecting our elections and everything to do with federalizing voter suppression.”
Democrats, who want to flood elections with illegal aliens because they will vote their way, have also whined that the law will prevent married women from voting because the names on their birth certificates don’t match their married names.
This shows how duplicitous they are: Obama exploited the name difference of at least one married woman to clear his path to the Illinois Senate.
David Freddoso exposed Obama’s nastiness years ago in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, in which he pointed out that the community organizer “won his first election in 1996 by throwing all of his opponents off the ballot on technicalities.”
One of the Obama “tactics for disqualifying them was to challenge signatures on his opponents’ petitions by married women who signed using the wrong name,” he posted Sunday, which happened to be International Women’s Day.
“Beginning on Jan. 2, 1996,” Freddoso writes in his 2008 Journal piece, Obama’s “campaigners began challenging thousands” of qualifying petition signatures that “the other candidates in the race had submitted in order to appear on the ballot. Thus would Mr. Obama win his state Senate seat, months before a single vote was cast.”
The petition challengers reported to Obama “nightly on their progress as they disqualified his opponents’ signatures on various technical grounds — all legitimate from the perspective of law.”
“In the end,” says Freddoso, “Obama disqualified all four opponents — including the incumbent state senator, Alice Palmer, and three minor candidates.”
So Obama began his noxious “public service” career using dirty Chicago Democratic machine politics, going so low as to even disenfranchise females. Today, his party, which is more unscrupulous than ever after having adopted his vile methods and taken on his odious personality, wants to pretend none of it ever happened and strains mightily to cast itself as the principled defender of female voters.
No wonder that only the murderous Islamist regime in Iran scored lower than the Democratic Party in the favorability rating in a recent NBC poll.
— Written by the I&I Editorial Board
Obama was and is permitted to do and say whatever he wishes, however vulgar, racist, and anti-American, because he is 1/2 black. It’s no more complicated than that.
The Dragon speaks the truth. I nearly voted for Obama-simply because he was black.
Then I heard that he joined and stayed in a church whose pastor spoke anti-Semitic tropes.
I didn’t vote-after this-for Obama. But inside I felt like I was a bigot for not doing so.
In regard to your article above:
I loved the comedy of it when Michelle Obama proclaimed in her, “I am so much more superior than you are, you groveling plebeians,” tone that “when they go low, we go high.”
Michelle was always delightfully amusing and is still very good theater from her high perch.
NOTE: The SAVE Act from 2025 is dead. President Trump\’s new Act is called the The SAVE America Act. There is a difference.
You’ve got Obama exactly right, IMO.
But I don’t think you quite understand the voter integrity risk. Based on working the polls and later at my Board of Elections across ten years, the problem so far is not illegals voting, but their expansion of the voter rolls (often without their knowledge as they contact various government agencies, who zealously meet what they see as their motor-voter duties). The expanded voter rolls (often with duplicate spellings and addresses for a single illegal) are then used to print a large number of excess ballots. These are mailed to old addresses of people not looking to vote; apartment mailboxes are easily opened to gather up ballots which a small cadre of activists fill out and then submit in bulk (“harvesting”). They even run ballots through printers when they don’t have time to fill them out by hand.
If a voter does show up to be told they voted by mail, they are offered a provisional ballot which, even if counted, does not cancel the phony mail-in ballot in their name already accepted.
As of my last election in 2020, illegals weren’t voting – just being used as the first step in a massive cheating scheme. They will begin voting soon, I believe.
And history suggests that the SAVE act will be as ineffective as HAVA before it. There’s too much to be gained by cheating for a mere law to stop it.
So, if the SAVE act is passed, it would be democrats who would more than likely to try and disenfranchise married women voters – just like Obama did to start his career. Got it.
Typical nasty dishonesty from I&I. They claim that Democrats are duplicitous because of something Obama is said to have done, that few people have heard of, and that few Democrats would support.
Democrats have a long history of not supporting politicians who behave badly. Remember Gary Hart, John Edwards, and Al Franken? Hart and Edwards each had an affair. Franken only pretended to grope a sleeping woman. All wer driven from politics by their own party.
Richard Nixon was forced, by his own party, to resign after a crime. Now, LOTS of members of the administration are having affairs and committing crimes over and over, and the GOP excuses or denies them.
The FBI and DOJ have been turned into political attack machines. The GOP response is just to falsely claim that Biden did the same thing, when, if fact, he seems to have followed presidential tradition and kept his hands off of both institutions.