January 12, 2012 · By Gina Miller · 16 Comments
Listen to the author read this article
Since when is being right considered “controversial”? You have likely noticed that “mainstream” news media—which simply means media that is aligned with the communist Left—when reporting on issues that are important to the true mainstream of patriotic Americans will call those issues “controversial.” When reading a news article published in the Miami Herald, I saw the word used to describe the voter identification law in South Carolina.
There is nothing controversial about wanting to protect the integrity of our elections, as voters here in Mississippi did in the last election when we approved our voter ID ballot initiative. Requiring proper ID to vote is simply common sense. What is controversial is how the Democrats react to the proposition of the loss of easier access to fraudulent voting. When ID is required to vote, that means fraudsters who vote in place of dead people, illegal aliens who vote and various other criminal voters have a much harder, if not impossible, time casting those illegal votes.
Of course, Democrats do not put it that way, because Democrats lie to conceal the truth of their unconstitutional, anti-American agenda. They make the stupidly wrong claim that voter ID laws will prevent blacks and other minorities from voting. That is not even a good, dumb argument! In the case of South Carolina and some other states, free state ID is offered to those who claim to not be able to afford to pay the small fee for it, a claim which, in itself, is quite silly. Nevertheless, if those same people also claim they have no way to travel to pick up their free ID, South Carolina has an 800 number they can call to get a free ride to get their free state-issued ID.
After South Carolina adopted their voter ID law, the despicable, racist Attorney General Eric Holder rushed to command the new law be blocked. Really, how dare he? Oh, but he does dare. This may be the most corrupt “Justice” Department in US history, not only for this injustice, but for numerous rotten actions in the past 3 years, like the wicked and deadly Fast and Furious scheme, the favorable treatment of black criminals as in the New Black Panthers voter intimidation case during the ’08 election, the suing of states that want to protect their citizens from the illegal alien invasion, and the refusal to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
The good news is that South Carolina is not going to stand down in the face of this leftist attack on election integrity. On Tuesday, three top officials in South Carolina announced that they will sue the Justice Department in Washington DC district court to challenge this absurd dictate. Legal precedent is on South Carolina’s side. The Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of a voter ID law in Indiana, and the Justice Department in the last administration upheld Georgia’s voter ID law which is the same as South Carolina’s.
The issue of voter ID laws drives the Left into spastic tantrums. The completely bogus claim that voter ID laws equal a return to “Jim Crow” is wailed from the rooftops. They have no legitimate argument against this common-sense protection of our elections, so they, as always, resort to the flimsiest of lies and false accusations to defend their indefensible position. The Left, as a chorus, takes up the worn-out chant of “racist discrimination” in the hopes of drowning out the voices of truth.
One typical example of lunatic, leftist lying comes from a writer at the Daily Kos. In reporting on a Heritage Foundation article by Hans von Spakovsky, whom he calls a “joker,” the author wraps up his column with this gem of leftist “logic,”
“The shorter version: Spakovsky’s claims are [BS]. Suppression of the votes of vulnerable citizens—the poor, the elderly, students, historically discriminated against people of color—is an ongoing, relentless campaign of right wingers. If one thing doesn’t work, they try another. Attorney Gen. Holder has justifiably slipped a stick into their spokes. It’s no surprise to hear them squealing about it.”
So, what does this Daily Kook writer regard as “squealing” by Mr. von Spakovsky? Let’s take a look at a few parts of Mr. von Spakovsky’s well-written Heritage Foundation report,
“Attorney General Eric Holder put a lump of coal in South Carolina’s Christmas stocking on Dec. 23 when he objected to the state’s new voter ID law. By ignoring inconvenient facts and clear legal precedent, Holder showed once again that politics and ideology—not the rule of law—drive his law enforcement decisions. Given the power of the Justice Department and its potential for abuse, this should worry all Americans, particularly when that abuse has the potential to affect the outcome of next year’s election.
… This new ID requirement is a common-sense reform that can easily be met by voters regardless of their race, ethnicity, or economic status. However, South Carolina is one of the few states still covered under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, a civil rights-era law that requires the state to get ‘preclearance’ of any voting change from the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Justice Department or a federal court in the District of Columbia. Section 5 was originally passed in 1965 as a five-year emergency provision to remedy widespread, systematic discrimination in the South. Yet it has been frequently renewed—most recently in 2006—even though the official discrimination it was intended to stop has long since disappeared except for isolated incidents.
South Carolina made the grievous error of submitting the state’s new voter ID law to the Justice Department for review, rather than going straight to federal court where it would get an impartial hearing. The history of this Justice Department over the past three years, from the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case to the refusal to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, has been one in which raw politics and ideology are driving law enforcement decisions.
… DOJ apparently wants to prevent common-sense election reforms—which are supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans and would help guarantee the security and integrity of the election process—from being in place for next year’s election. This objection reveals both the character of this Attorney General and the lengths to which he is willing to go to abuse the power and authority of the federal government in order to meet the political demands of the Left.”
I suppose that to those on the communist Left, that sounds like the ravings of a madman, but to those of us who love America and want to preserve our Constitution, our freedoms and the nation as founded, those are words of plain truth.
An ironic idea occurs to me. If voter ID laws were enacted in all states, it is likely that overall voter turnout would be lower, mainly on the Democrat side, of course. That is simply the result of all those dead and otherwise illegal voters not being able to cast their lawless Democrat votes. In the event of a lower voter turnout, you can take it to the bank that the Left would screech, “See?! We told you minorities would be prevented from voting! Look at the lower turnout of Democrat votes!” Liberalism is not nearly as popular as the Left would have us believe, and they know darned well that without their fraudulent votes, they would have a much harder time gaining and keeping power.
Dead voters remain on the voter rolls in every state. Purging of voter rolls of dead people and otherwise ineligible voters (as in those who have moved out of the district or state) is part of what needs to happen on a very regular basis to further prevent voter fraud. Of course, the Left fights any kind of effort to clean up the election process, and purging voter rolls is another thing the Left detests.
For that matter, those on the Left routinely claim that election fraud does not even occur, this despite the fact that it most certainly does. Mr. von Spakovsky, in a column at National Review had this to say about the spurious claims by the Left,
“Once you get past the race-baiting, you will find that opponents of voter ID generally rely on two arguments, equally specious: 1) There is no need for photo ID, because there is no voter fraud in the United States; 2) This is a deliberate effort to suppress the turnout of minority voters, who often don’t have photo ID. Liberals keep repeating these false claims despite the fact that they have been disproved both in the courtroom and at the polling place.
The claim that there is no voter fraud in the U.S. is patently ridiculous, given our rich and unfortunate history of it. As the U.S. Supreme Court said when it upheld Indiana’s photo-ID law in 2008, ‘Flagrant examples of such fraud . . . have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists.’ The liberal groups that fought Indiana’s law didn’t have much luck with liberal justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the 6–3 decision. Before being named to the Supreme Court, Justice Stevens practiced law in Chicago, a hotbed of electoral malfeasance.”
Yes, election fraud does occur, and Democrats desperately try to deny its existence. After all, if it does not exist, then there is no reason to combat it, right? Yeah, right. I applaud South Carolina for taking this fight to court—this fight to preserve its perfectly correct voter ID law from the baseless assault by the lawless Obama “Justice” Department, a department of this administration that makes a shameful mockery of its own name.
This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.
Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.
"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all." - Ronald Reagan, Nov. 10, 1964