Kris Kobach Doesn't Like The New GAO Study Showing His Voter ID Law Decreased Turnout

Surprise! A new Government Accountability Office study shows that Kansas’ new voter ID requirement depressed turnout in the 2012 election, and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach is not happy about it.

Kobach was the driving force behind Kansas’ voter ID law, which he called the “Cadillac of voter security.” The law passed in 2011, and its photo ID requirement kicked in for the 2012 election — that’s the provision that the GAO found decreased turnout, especially among young people and African Americans.

But since then, a new provision in the law has taken effect, making it even harder to vote in Kansas. As of last month, tens of thousands of Kansans had had their voter registrations suspended because of failure to provide one of a narrow list of “proof of citizenship” documents required under this new, Kobach-backed provision.

The “proof of citizenship” fiasco has become a main issue in Kobach’s tough reelection fight, causing many moderate Republicans to break ranks and back his Democratic opponent Jean Schodorf.

So, unsurprisingly, Kobach is not thrilled with the GAO study showing that even the first step of his “Cadillac” plan is driving people from voting, telling the Wichita Eagle that the report from the nonpartisan agency is just “dead wrong.”

“I think the GAO just got it dead wrong,” Kobach told The Eagle Wednesday. “This year we have a very competitive U.S. Senate race and lots of get-out-the-vote efforts. It’s a huge factor in driving turnout when campaigns spend this kind of money.”

Kobach also said it would have been more accurate to compare Kansas’ turnout in 2012 to its turnout in 2000, the last time there were no U.S. Senate or statewide offices on the ballot. In 2000, voter turnout was 66.7 percent, and in 2012, it was 66.8 percent.

The report says voter turnout decreased in Kansas and Tennessee from the 2008 to the 2012 general elections to a greater extent than turnout decreased in selected comparison states – Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware and Maine. Tennessee’s secretary of state, Tre Hargett, also called the study flawed.

The GAO stood by its study, saying its “methodology was robust and valid.”

Rebecca Gambler, director of homeland security and justice issues for the GAO, said the agency selected Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware and Maine for comparison because they did not have any changes to their state voter ID requirements between 2008 and 2012.

“They didn’t have other contemporaneous changes. They had similar election cycles to Kansas and Tennessee,” Gambler said.

The GAO reported that its analysis “suggests that the turnout decreases in Kansas and Tennessee beyond decreases in comparison states were attributable to changes in the two states’ voter ID requirements.”

Barber: SCOTUS Is 'Tempting The Wrath Of God' With Gay Marriage Decision

Matt Barber and Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel continue to fume about the Supreme Court's recent decision to allow several lower-court marriage equality rulings to stand and have dedicated several recent episodes of their "Faith and Freedom" radio program to ranting about it, with Barber at one point warning that America will soon face divine wrath.

On an episode set to run on Tuesday, Barber warns that "homosexual conduct is demonstrably and explicitly, throughout the Old and New Testament, called sin. And when you have a sin-centered redefinition of marriage and the government puts its official stamp on sin, you have the government blessing sin, well, sin cannot be blessed, it cannot be sanctified."

By trying to do so, Barber said, America is "tempting the wrath of God":

Mat Staver: Third Party Needed To Stop Gay Marriage, Just Like With Slavery

Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver, who is still reeling from the Supreme Court’s decision this week to allow several lower-court marriage equality rulings to stand, is now lambasting his fellow Republicans for failing to defend the party’s anti-gay positions.

Staver told Greg Corombos of Radio America yesterday that a third party will be needed to take a strong stance against the legalization of same-sex marriage, just as the Republican Party emerged in the 1850s to oppose slavery as the Whigs were foundering due to divisions on the issue.

When Corombos asked why Republicans have delivered a muted response to the marriage decision, Staver didn’t hold back: “They’re cowards, and if Republicans don’t stand up for this, the party will become a non-issue and there will be a third party that will ultimately take its place. That’s what happened with the issue of slavery and there’s no party that’s immune from this situation.”

He said George W. Bush could have pushed through the Federal Marriage Amendment following the 2004 election but was too fixated on advocating for the privatization of Social Security.

Staver urged Republicans to ignore polls showing growing support for marriage equality: “Just because polls change, that doesn’t make the marriage issue change. You can’t change gravity because a number of people want to fly and get rid of gravity.”

He predicted that the tide will soon turn against gay rights advocates as “more people feel the impact of same-sex marriage, both directly within the family but also specifically with regards to religious liberty.”

Staver added that it is “absolute stupidity” to think that the fight over marriage equality is over: “That would be like saying with regards to Dred Scot, when the Supreme Court said, ‘Sorry Dred Scott, you’re black and blacks are inferior human beings, you don’t have rights of a citizen, therefore the debates over.’ That would be ridiculous then, it’s ridiculous now.”

Phyllis Schlafly: Obama Intentionally Bringing In Ebola To Make America More Like Africa

In an interview with WorldNetDaily published today, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly weighed in on the unfounded theory gaining traction in the right-wing media that Central American young people are to blame for an outbreak of a childhood respiratory illness in the U.S.

“There are all kinds of diseases in the rest of the world, and we don’t want them in this country,” Schlafly told WND, adding that “of all the things [Obama has] done, I think this thing of letting these diseased people into this country to infect our own people is just the most outrageous of all.”

She went on to imply that President Obama is intentionally allowing people infected with Ebola into the United States because he wants America to be “just like everybody else, and if Africa is suffering from Ebola, we ought to join the group and be suffering from it, too. That’s his attitude.”

Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly – author of “Who Killed the American Family?” – said she agrees Obama is responsible for allowing diseases to enter the country.

“There are all kinds of diseases in the rest of the world, and we don’t want them in this country,” Schlafly said. “And it’s Obama’s job to keep them out.

“Out of all the things he’s done, I think this thing of letting these diseased people into this country to infect our own people is just the most outrageous of all.”

Schlafly said the government should screen immigrants for disease before they enter the country, as was done at Ellis Island a hundred years ago.

“That was the purpose of Ellis Island – to have a waiting place where it was decided whether people were healthy enough or responsible enough to come into our country,” she said. “The idea that anybody can just walk in and carry this disease with them is just an outrage, and it is Obama’s fault because he’s responsible for doing it.”

When asked why the current administration hasn’t done more to prevent diseased illegal aliens or Ebola carriers from Africa from entering the country, Schlafly said Obama wants to make the U.S. more like the rest of the world.

“Obama doesn’t want America to believe that we’re exceptional,” Schlafly said. “He wants us to be just like everybody else, and if Africa is suffering from Ebola, we ought to join the group and be suffering from it, too. That’s his attitude.”

Erik Rush Asks: Is Obama Trying 'To Facilitate An Ebola Outbreak In The United States?'

WorldNetDaily commentator Erik Rush insists in his column today that he is just asking the question: Does President Obama intend “to facilitate an Ebola outbreak in the United States? Will his efforts to protect Americans from this dread disease be as ineffectual and insincere as his war against ISIS?”

Rush writes that the president is not an “unluckly, incompetent or intellectually compromised” leader, as in fact “the individual representing himself as Barack Hussein Obama is a malignant saboteur, harboring allegiances that are in conflict with his role as our president.”

According to Rush, Obama is an “incomprehensibly diabolical individual” who hopes to create an Islamic caliphate and allow members of terrorist groups to enter the United States. Following this train of thought, Rush insists that it is only reasonable to wonder if Obama is hoping to spread Ebola in the U.S.

I’ve said before (and I am by no means the only one) that it would be statistically impossible for an individual to be sufficiently unlucky, incompetent, or intellectually compromised that their policies would overwhelmingly result in disaster after disaster. Unfortunately, we’ve cultivated a population wherein there are individuals among us so mind-blowingly stupid that they believe travel restrictions imposed on Ebola-stricken nations would be racist. Thus, there are plenty of folks who still buy into the “Obama as the good-natured bungler” narrative – sort of a Steve Urkel with a pen and a phone.

While I have breath, however, I will continue to affirm that the individual representing himself as Barack Hussein Obama is a malignant saboteur, harboring allegiances that are in conflict with his role as our president.

Obama used political correctness as a pretext for failing to control our southern border. It was viewed as imprudent, but his intention was to overwhelm the system, thus allowing massive numbers of illegal immigrants and potential terrorists access to the United States.

Obama used humanitarianism and regional security as a pretext for arming “moderate” rebels in Syria. It was viewed as imprudent, but his intention was to facilitate the rise of an Islamic caliphate that would destabilize the Middle East and threaten the United States.

Obama used economics and social justice as a pretext for comprehensive changes to America’s health-care system. It was viewed as imprudent, but his intention was to massively increase Americans’ dependency on the government.

Obama used loyalty as a pretext for trading five jihadi generals for one deserter – illegally, I might add. It was viewed as imprudent, but his intention was to provide terrorist groups with the invaluable experience these murderers could offer.

Obama uses citizenship as a pretext for failing to take decisive action against Americans fighting with ISIS in the Middle East upon their return. It is viewed as imprudent, but his intention is to enable terrorist groups within our borders.

Obama is even using the constitutional separation (of church and state) clause as a pretext for refusing to address Islamist ideology, despite his administration’s unconstitutional deportment toward Christians (in the form of the abortifacient and contraceptive mandates under Obamacare and the widespread disenfranchisement of Christians in the military).



Barack Obama used the denial of risk as a pretext for failing to restrict travel from Ebola-stricken African nations. This, too, was viewed as imprudent. Is his intention to facilitate an Ebola outbreak in the United States? Will his efforts to protect Americans from this dread disease be as ineffectual and insincere as his war against ISIS?

If the above questions paint the picture of an incomprehensibly diabolical individual, bear in mind that this individual and his contemporaries have despised everything America stands for their entire lives, and that their idols are among worst mass murderers the world has known. Then, consider their track record as indicated above.

Then, ask yourself why they wouldn’t use any and every means at their disposal to bring about the desired result.

Clint Didier: Athletes Lean Conservative Because 'There's No Equality In Being Number One'

Former NFL tight end Clint Didier, who is now a Republican candidate for Congress in Washington state, spoke last month with Mama Grizzly Radio’s Kevin Scholla, who asked him why, in his experience, “athletes and those in sports” tend to be conservative.

Didier responded that “the heart and soul of it is competition” because “as much as the left wants to take it out of America,” athletes “love to compete” which is “what America is all about.”

“And that is what about the athletes that brings them into the conservative mold because, you know, when you’re a champion, there’s no equality in being number one,” he reflected.

Later in the interview, Scholla asked Didier about the controversy over the name of the Washington, D.C., football team, for which Didier played in the 1980s. Didier insisted that “if the American people were truly offended by the Redskins   name, then they wouldn’t be going to the games and they wouldn’t be buying all that memorabilia.”

He then suggested that the U.S. Patent and Trademark office’s decision to remove the team’s trademark was a politically motivated attack on the team’s owner, Dan Snyder, whose campaign contributions have gone largely to Republicans….a conspiracy theory that seems to have originated with Glenn Beck.

“One of the things people need to be looking at is who does Snyder contribute his campaign funds to, is to conservatives,” Didier said. “Is it about the name or is it about Snyder being a conservative and giving to conservative candidates? This is a question that needs to be posed in this attack on the Redskins.”

Right Wing Round-Up - 10/8/14

Right Wing Bonus Tracks - 10/8/14

  • Right wing activist and donor Philip Zodhiates pleaded not guilty today to charges stemming from his role in the Lisa Miller kidnapping case.
  • Gov. Sam Brownback blames the media and liberals for the fact that his economic policies are failing.
  • Bob Ellis calls on people to refuse to abide by court rulings in favor of gay marriage: "[I]f 'we the people' do not rise up and use every means at our disposal to restore law and morality to our land, we will be as complicit in the evil of these lawless judges and officials as those officials themselves."
  • Similarly, NOM's John Eastman calls for "a constitutional amendment to overturn these decisions."
  • Phyllis Schlafly says President Obama isn’t banning travel from countries with Ebola because "his proclaimed goal is the fundamental transformation of the United States to make us more like other countries."
  • Finally, Janet Porter has an op-ed explaining why she will not be voting for John Kasich and a new video encouraging people to vote him out of office for refusing to support her "Heartbeat Bill" legislation:

Catholic League: 'Mindy Project' Showed 'Potentially Lethal' Anal Sex Scene

The Catholic League is displeased with Mindy Kaling, warning in a statement today — “Anal Sex Thrills ‘Mindy’” — that the “The Mindy Project” creator, along with her “homosexual writers,” may inadvertently kill people with a suggestive scene involving jokes about anal sex.

“Binge drinking, like anal sex, is potentially lethal, but Hollywood only has an interest in promoting the latter,” Catholic League president Bill Donohue writes. “That’s because of the large number of homosexual writers who work there. Catholics would appreciate it, however, if they would keep their dark secrets in the closet, where they belong.”

HT: RWW reader Andrew.

Last night’s episode of “The Mindy Project,” a Fox show, opened with an implied sex scene involving Dr. Mindy Lahiri (played by Mindy Kaling) and Danny Castellano (played by Chris Messina); it was titled, “I Slipped!” The room is dark and there is moaning.



After the title sequence, the two characters are shown in an office arguing about the sexual encounter from the night before. Mindy is upset with what Danny did. Danny insists it was a mistake. It is implied that Danny attempted anal sex.



Bill Donohue offers his thoughts on this episode:

Binge drinking, like anal sex, is potentially lethal, but Hollywood only has an interest in promoting the latter. That’s because of the large number of homosexual writers who work there. Catholics would appreciate it, however, if they would keep their dark secrets in the closet, where they belong.

Allen West: Obama Waging Biological Warfare Against Americans

In an interview yesterday with conservative talk show host Jesse Lee Peterson, former Republican congressman Allen West reiterated his unsubstantiated claim that undocumented youth are spreading a childhood respiratory disease through America, an increasingly popular talking point in the right-wing media.

West alleged that if researchers ever do find a connection between “dispersed illegal alien children” and enterovirus D68, “then shame on the president for playing politics with the health of our children, that would just be abhorrent.”

When Peterson asked West if he thought the respiratory illness “is a biological warfare,” the former congressman responded that could be a strong possibility: “You know the thing is, biological warfare doesn’t have to be something purposeful, but all of the sudden when you have contagions that are in your environment that are attacking your people, that is an aspect of biological warfare. I believe it was Tom Clancy who wrote a book about weaponizing Ebola so we need to be very aware of these things.”

Syndicate content