Holder's Race-Baiting is about Obama's Re-Election, Not Voting Rights

[Guest]

by Ken Blackwell, and Ken Klukowski

Eric Holder’s Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched an all-out war on voter-ID laws and other measures to safeguard to the electoral process. Although Holder’s actions are purportedly to prevent African-Americans from being disenfranchised, the reality is that they serve the crass political purpose of ensuring that Holder’s boss gets reelected next year.

In the past several years states have increasingly focused on measures to protect the vote. After years of the federal government loosening voting regulations, such as through the Motor Voter Act and HAVA (Help America Vote Act), the pendulum started swinging back at the state level.

The clearest example of this trend is through voter-ID laws. In 2008 the Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s landmark law requiring citizens to show that they are the person they claim to be by showing government-issued ID before casting a ballot. But to ensure that those without driver’s licenses or passports are not disenfranchised, Indiana provides free ID’s to everyone who applies for one. The Court upheld this law, with the primary opinion written by no one less than liberal lion Justice John Paul Stevens.

Such laws combat voter fraud that we see on Election Day, especially in certain parts of the nation. In Washington State, King County suddenly “discovered” enough previously “unnoticed” votes for Democrat Christine Gregoire to edge out Republican Dino Rossi for Washington’s governorship in 2004. There are also examples from Wisconsin, Missouri, and other states.

Yet Holder has blocked South Carolina’s voter-ID law. DOJ argues that this law is different from Indiana’s because South Carolina is subject to additional federal oversight under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. (This is especially important because there are several federal cases challenging the constitutionality of Section 5.)

But the reality is that DOJ’s actions are not focused on protecting voting rights. They are instead intended to make sure that Barack Obama wins reelection.

It’s not cynical to say this. The twelve or so battleground states that will decide the 2012 presidential election suggest Obama’s reelection strategy. These states include Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Missouri. All these states have large African-American populations.

The African-American community has a staggeringly-high unemployment rate under President Obama. So Black Americans will not vote for this president because of any prosperity he’s brought to that community. Instead, he has to gin up their votes by painting a picture of racial conflict in which he—and the governmental agency dealsing with such things, DOJ—is their champion.

This is also seen in Holder’s incessant playing of the race card. First he says we’re a nation of cowards about race. Now that he’s on the ropes for DOJ’s scandalous Operation Fast and Furious gun-running scandal into Mexico, he has the audacity to say that he and President Obama are being attacked in part because they’re both African-Americans.

Voting is a fundamental right. It is the means by which “We the People” consent to be governed for a fixed period of time by certain individuals, by electing them as stewards of governmental power. They wield this power to secure our rights as set forth in the U.S. Constitution and (for state officials) the constitutions of the fifty states.

But there is another voting right. It is the right not to have your legal vote diluted by fraudulent votes. As we explain in our Yale Law & Policy Review article “The Other Voting Right,” every invalid vote cancels out one valid vote. Each such cancellation undermines our democratic republic and reduces the legitimacy of election results.

Voting is also unique in that it might be the only right that is also a duty. It’s not too much to ask for citizens to exert a minimal amount of effort to fulfill reasonable regulations to protect the integrity of the electoral process.

Every eligible citizen has a duty to vote. But as we explain in our book Resurgent: How Constitutional Conservatism Can Save America, it is a duty to cast an informed vote. Although there are only so many hours in the day, we each need to make an effort to gather enough information to understand the major issues facing our nation, state, and community, and to carefully vote for candidates who offer the best solutions for our long-term safety and prosperity.

Because voting is a duty, and also because every voter has the right to ensure their valid vote is not diluted by fraudulent votes, citizens can be expected to fulfill certain requirements that would not be justified when exercising other rights, such as free speech or the free exercise of religion. Measures such as showing up at the correct place on the correct day to cast a ballot under the watchful eyes of trained precinct personnel are examples of fulfilling our duty, as is showing valid ID to prove that you are the person listed on that precinct’s voter rolls.

These measures are essential to our self-governing republic. As examples the world over show, losing the integrity of the electoral process is a mistake a free people often get to make only once.

http://townhall.com/columnists/kenblackw...ghts/page/full/

[Guest]

Has everybody seen this? I just want to be fair to everyone. :)

[abelisle]

"The African-American community has a staggeringly-high unemployment rate under President Obama. So Black Americans will not vote for this president because of any prosperity he’s brought to that community. Instead, he has to gin up their votes by painting a picture of racial conflict in which he—and the governmental agency dealsing with such things, DOJ—is their champion"

This is rubbish. Wait and see how the vote will go. I live in NYC with a large Afro-American community. No one talks like this.

Alex

[Dr. Shane]

There are a lot of Democrats, including blacks, that are not energized and are simply going to sit this election out. That will be devastating to Obama. However, through voter fraud, all those that sit at home can still end up voting. A Democrat machine just needs to get a hold of the voter cards, which they can get from the county office of a Democrat-controlled county. Once they have those voter cards, they can send out party loyals with the cards to vote multiple times at multiple polling places. Dead people can even vote. In the 2000 election in my county we had over 700 dead people that voted. If a person has to show a photo ID to vote, suddenly the dead people don't vote any more nor do those sitting the election out.

[Woody]

Yes. The Demos are well established at voting for the dead. The dead were the deciding votes for Obama in the last election.

[Guest]

Most of my black friends here in Winston-Salem are going to vote for him because he is black. (that's racism, plain and simple) And they don't follow politics enough to know that anything is wrong. They honestly believe that this bad economy is all Bush's fault, (even 4 years after he's gone) because that is what the mainstream media has told them. So how could it be wrong?

The ones of us that do see the problem, and understand it, must be racist, according to them. What else could it possibly be?

Of course there is no way that I am going to end all my friendships over politics. But it does make me shake my head in amazement.

[olger]

See if you can spot the non-democrat..

[Guest]

I see him, I see him!

But he must be a RINO, or a moderate, otherwise he would not be running with that crowd.

(No offense to Shane this time. I like what he has posted here)

[lazarus]

Most of my black friends here in Winston-Salem are going to vote for him because he is black.

They told you that did they? So guess if Cain got the nomination the vote would have been spit 50/50. Cain wouldn't have made a dent in Obama's numbers. It's about policies, son.

Quote:

And they don't follow politics enough to know that anything is wrong. They honestly believe that this bad economy is all Bush's fault, (even 4 years after he's gone) because that is what the mainstream media has told them.

Are you really trying to seriously suggest that the present economy had nothing to do with Bush? Bush clearly deserves most of the blame.

How many jobs were jobs were being lost when Obama took office? Was the recession under Bush or Obama? When did the economic meltdown happen? When did Lehman Brothers, AIG, etc. collapse? When did the DOW collapse? Are you kidding?

Obama's policies clearly saved the US from a complete Economic meltdown. Are you ignorant of that? What has Obama done to make the economy worse?

Ok, lets see how knowledgeable YOU are......

[Dr. Shane]

Are you really trying to seriously suggest that the present economy had nothing to do with Bush? Bush clearly deserves most of the blame.

I disagree. The cause of the problem was set in motion before Bush arrived in Washington. Bush did try to increase regulation on Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac and his efforts were squashed by both parties in Congress. Senator McCain deserves more of the blame than Bush does. Congress and the Federal Reserve are the chief culprits. The President is not the all mighty in our democratic form of government. He can only do so much. Bush advisers have admitted that while they understood there was a problem in the making, they underestimated the scale of what was going to happen otherwise they would have pushed harder for regulatory reform. The simple truth is that no one thought it was going to be this bad.

Obama's problem is that after the problem happened, he promised that he could fix it. So blaming some one or some party is rather academic. Obama claimed to be the guy who could solve the problem. He has failed. It is time we give some one else with some different ideas a chance.

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: lazarus

Are you really trying to seriously suggest that the present economy had nothing to do with Bush? Bush clearly deserves most of the blame.

I disagree. The cause of the problem was set in motion before Bush arrived in Washington. Bush did try to increase regulation on Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac and his efforts were squashed by both parties in Congress. Senator McCain deserves more of the blame than Bush does. Congress and the Federal Reserve are the chief culprits. The President is not the all mighty in our democratic form of government. He can only do so much. Bush advisers have admitted that while they understood there was a problem in the making, they underestimated the scale of what was going to happen otherwise they would have pushed harder for regulatory reform. The simple truth is that no one thought it was going to be this bad.

Obama's problem is that after the problem happened, he promised that he could fix it. So blaming some one or some party is rather academic. Obama claimed to be the guy who could solve the problem. He has failed. It is time we give some one else with some different ideas a chance.

First I want to say that I don't disagree with anything Lazarus had to say.

I also must definitely agree with your statement that "The President is not the all mighty in our democratic form of government. He can only do so much." This has been my biggest problem with politicians when they run for office and I hear them say promise this promise that. Because they are only 1/3 of the equation.

As far as Obama making his promise to fix the problem, I agree this was definitely a mistake. But I hear the same from all the candidates running right now, same stupid remarks, almost in unisene(sp) "we can fix this!"

[Dr. Shane]

• Bush did try to increase the regulation of Fannie May and Freddie Mac.
• Both parties in Congress stopped him from doing anything.
• If he had known how big of a mess it was going to create, he may have doubled down and tried to do more than what he did.
• Blaming Bush for this crisis is ignoring the major factors that caused it.

[Guest]

Obama's policies clearly saved the US from a complete Economic meltdown.

Anybody who honestly believes that, (and I think you do) I see no point in even dialoguing with. You are not even connected with reality where politics is concerned. You obviously don't look at, listen to, or hear, anything other than the left wing propaganda/drivel that you already believe. So what would be the point?

But I am curious as to what you believe Obama did, that saved this economy. Do you think that putting us 5 Trillion dollars deeper in debt and causing our credit rating to be downgraded has saved the economy? It hasn't. It has only made things much worse. Do you believe that putting more regulations on businesses, and higher taxes has somehow saved the economy? It has not. Do you believe that making sure that we can't drill for our own oil, and trying to bankrupt the coal industry has somehow helped this economy?

If so, then your beliefs are at war with reality, and you must live in a world where you have to wear a certain kind of brightly colored glasses to see it.

The unemployment numbers are now being skewed and misrepresented to makes things look better. For one thing, the ones who's unemployment benefits have run out, and have not found work, are no longer counted. But of course you wouldn't know anything about that. How could you, you live in a bubble.

But please humor me, and point to the "policies" that you think have saved this economy.

(the economy hasn't been saved by the way, and when big O's health care policies kick in for real, you are going see things get much MUCH worse. I pray to God that never happens.)

PS. I have to work overtime again tomorrow, so try to be more careful this time. :)

[Dr. Shane]

Obama saved the auto industry and that was good although I think Bush, McCain, Biden or any other politician would have done the same thing as President. After all, Reagan bailed out Chrysler. If Obama would have opened up the energy sector, the price of gas would have stayed much lower and thus given Americans more spending money to stimulate the economy. Thousands of jobs would have been created generating much revenue and thus providing deficit relief.

[Guest]

They told you that did they?