Is it not amazing that the same Justice Department that dismissed a case against voter intimidatioon in Philadelphia by the New Black Panther Party and refused to get involved against Democratic Party boss Ike Brown, who was pulling all kinds of shenanigans in Mississippi to keep white voters in his predominently black county from voting-has now jumped into the fray aginst South Carolina's voter ID law.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/23/justice-department-rejects-south-carolina-voter-id-law/
Let's be clear here. This is not an attempt to protect the rights of minority voters. This is an attempt to keep the floodgates open for voters who are dead, not citizens, or people who want to vote early, often, and in various districts. The voter ID laws are simply an attempt to prevent fraudulent votes. In a close election, this is what Democrats depend on.
Of course, it is undeniable that in the past, blacks in the South were prevented from voting by a variety of methods including force and intimidation. Federal laws were passed in the 1960s to stop that, and today, many states in the South are still under federal inspection to insure there are no violations. This is something entirely different.
Here in California, poll workers are precluded from asking for ID. The person walks in, gives his or her name and address, at which time the name and addressed are crossed off and the person is handled a ballot. That means if someone knowss my name and address, they can race to the polls as early as possible and beat me to the punch. When I arrive to vote, my name is crossed off indicating that I already voted.
It seems to me that the sole argument thaqt opponents of voter ID laws can give is that more minority voters are without picture IDs than white voters.
How patronizing is that? I believe it was Georgia that was offering to help such persons get picture IDs prior to an election. That didn't satisfy the Democrats.
Every day, there are simple things that we do that require that we present a picture ID including credit cards purchases. Why should we not require that a person who is registered to vote present an ID first? It seems like common sense to me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
It all makes perfect sense to me. The Obama administration has recently opened a large area of the boarder, without having boarder patrol. The Obama administration has just removed 75% of the national guard from the boarder. The Obama administration has Eric Holder suing the boarder States if they inforce Federal and state immigration laws. The Obama administration is having Eric Holder fight the voter ID law. Are there enough pieces to the puzzle to get the picture? Remember, Obama was a premier ACORN community organizer (his only real job) and it was ACORN that was convicted of voter fraud. The picture should be getting clearer.
Squid
In this day and age you need a photo ID to do the following:
Apply for government benefits
Cash a check
Open a bank account
Drive a car
Rent an apartment or house
Apply for a job
I don't know anyone without a photo ID. I know many elderly and minority members. They all have a photo ID.
So what is the big problem?
"This is not an attempt to protect the rights of minority voters. This is an attempt to keep the floodgates open for voters who are dead, not citizens, or people who want to vote early, often, and in various districts."
That is the most self-serving tautological statement, unsupported by evidence, that Fousesquawk has ever imposed upon a weary world.
There is no evidence that people are showing up at the polls impersonating registered voters -- which is the only kind of fraud prevented by showing voter ID.
P.S. Obama did not work for ACORN. Although Squid may not realize this, there was community organizing going on before ACORN, there was community organizing going on in all fifty states when ACORN was "Arkansas Community Organizations for Reform Now," and there was community organization going on before government funding was available for any of it.
For the record, I favor cutting off all government funding to community organizations, for those organizations own good. They will be healthier and more independent for being free of dependence upon the state.
Post a Comment