XPost: alt.politics.trump, sac.politics, alt.politics.republicans   
   XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns   
   From: nospam@ix.netcom.com   
      
   The John F. Kennedy Library Foundation is set to hand out its annual   
   Profile in Courage Award on May 4 to a politician or other public figure   
   who the foundation thinks has demonstrated extraordinary political   
   courage, especially when doing so subjects him or her to criticism from   
   those with whom they are ordinarily allied.   
      
   If the deadline for nominations hadn’t already passed for this year’s   
   awards, there are four congressional Democrats who would have fit that   
   description. They should be considered for next year’s Profile in   
   Courage Awards.   
      
   On April 10, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed   
   the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility, or SAVE, Act, 220-208, with   
   the votes of four Democrats who defied their party’s strident, knee-jerk   
   opposition to the measure, which is aimed at ensuring election   
   integrity.   
      
   The four Democrats who courageously crossed the aisle were Reps. Ed Case   
   of Hawaii, Jared Golden of Maine, Henry Cuellar of Texas, and Marie   
   Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington state.   
      
   Though the SAVE Act would have passed even if the four had voted against   
   it, their support for the legislation—authored by Rep. Chip Roy,   
   R-Texas, and designed to ensure that only American citizens can vote in   
   U.S. elections—was not deserving of the condemnation they received from   
   within their own party.   
      
   Golden, among the last of the dying breed of genuinely moderate Blue Dog   
   Democrats, posted on X: “There are a lot of misleading claims out there   
   about the SAVE Act. Let me set the record straight: I voted for the SAVE   
   Act for the simple reason that American elections are for Americans.   
   Requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote is common sense.”   
      
      
   One of those “misleading claims” about the SAVE Act came from far-left   
   Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., who claimed—“without evidence,” as the legacy   
   media like to say when President Donald Trump makes an unproven   
   assertion—that it would disenfranchise “millions.”   
      
   “In a bold new departure for the forces of voter suppression, MAGA’s   
   so-called ‘SAVE’ Act will make it harder for tens of millions of   
   eligible Americans to vote, including tens of millions of people, mostly   
   women, who change their names after marriage,” Raskin falsely asserted   
   in a statement to the leftist news site Democracy Docket. Not   
   surprisingly, that website is run by Democrat superlawyer Marc Elias,   
   who is best known for legally contesting election integrity measures   
   whenever and wherever they are proposed.   
      
   Raskin’s flagrantly false talking points were echoed by failed 2016   
   Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, who called the   
   SAVE Act a “Republican voter suppression measure that threatens voting   
   access for millions of Americans, including 69 million women whose   
   married names don’t match their birth certificates.”   
      
   That’s also flagrantly false, because when women marry and adopt their   
   husbands’ surnames, they need to change a lot of records and documents,   
   from their driver’s license to their Social Security card to their   
   credit cards. Changing one’s voter registration would be just one more   
   record to update. It would only need to be done once—not for every   
   election—and there are two years between elections, so there would be   
   plenty of time to update one’s registration without missing a vote.   
      
   Furthermore, it’s beyond patronizing to suggest, as Raskin and Clinton   
   are doing here, that women are incapable of navigating the process to   
   update their voter registrations—as everyone must do if and when they   
   move and change their address, for example.   
      
   In similar fashion, opponents of election integrity measures such as the   
   SAVE Act—again, like Raskin, Clinton, and Elias—have no answer when   
   confronted and asked to explain why they think voters shouldn’t be   
   required to show an ID to cast a ballot when there are at least two   
   dozen other business and personal transactions for which a valid ID must   
   be presented:   
      
   Buy alcohol or tobacco or vape products   
   Open a bank account   
   Apply for a job   
   Rent or buy a home or apartment, apply for a mortgage, and sign up for   
   utility services (e.g., gas, electricity, water, and cable TV) Buy or   
   rent a car Drive a car   
   Board an airplane   
   Get married   
   Adopt or foster a child   
   Adopt a pet   
   Rent a hotel room, beach house, or boat   
   Apply for a hunting or fishing license   
   Enroll in school or college   
   Buy a cellphone and sign up for cellphone service   
   Enter a casino or gamble legally   
   Fill a prescription   
   Obtain certain over-the-counter drugs   
   Be admitted to a hospital   
   Obtain a permit to stage a rally or protest march   
   Donate blood   
   Purchase pornography   
   Apply for unemployment compensation   
   Apply for food stamps   
   Apply for welfare and other safety-net programs   
   Apply for Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security   
   Note that those final four items are government programs that require an   
   ID to prevent noncitizens and other ineligible people from taking   
   advantage of them. Yet, opponents of election integrity don’t think that   
   the process of choosing the elected officials who make the laws   
   governing those programs should be limited to those who can prove they   
   are who they say they are and that they are U.S. citizens.   
      
   Voting shouldn’t be the only government program for which an ID is not   
   required.   
      
   Moreover, one would have to be living a hermitlike existence akin to   
   that of the infamous Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, in a shack in the middle   
   of nowhere, without electricity or running water, not to need or have an   
   ID.   
      
   As such, the only people who would be disenfranchised by the SAVE Act   
   are those who cannot get a voter ID because they are noncitizens—illegal   
   immigrants or those in the country on visas—or otherwise ineligible and   
   shouldn’t be voting in the first place.   
      
   And if, as Democrats like Raskin and Elias insist, there are only a   
   negligible number of noncitizens on the voter rolls now, what do they   
   have to worry about if the SAVE Act removes them from the registry? The   
   dirty little secret is, the only reason for opposing the SAVE Act is   
   because opponents want ineligible people not only on the rolls, but   
   actually voting.   
      
   “They want illegals to vote,” Roy told national talk radio host Vince   
   Coglianese on Wednesday, referring to his bill’s opponents.   
      
   Since there aren’t likely to be the requisite seven profiles in   
   political courage among Senate Democrats to overcome a partisan   
   filibuster when the SAVE Act moves to the upper chamber, Republicans   
   should find a way to include the election integrity measure in their   
   forthcoming budget reconciliation bill so it won’t need Democrat votes.   
      
   https://amac.us/newsline/economy/massive-numbers-trumps-economic-agenda-   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)