Holder's Race-Baiting

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

• 
• Ken Blackwell
  

Dec 31, 2011

Editor's Note: This column was co-authored by 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.

 

Ken Blackwell

Ken Blackwell, a contributing editor at Townhall.com, is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council and the American Civil Rights Union and is on the board of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. He is the co-author of the new bestseller The Blueprint: Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency, on sale in bookstores everywhere..

TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Ken Blackwell's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.

Laffer Endorses Gingrich

Arthur Laffer, the famous supply-side economist who was the architect of Ronald Reagan’s successful economic plan, endorsed former House Speaker Newt Gingrich for president. Laffer said Gingrich’s “low individual and corporate tax rates, deregulation, and strong dollar monetary policies will create a boom of new investment and economic growth leading to the creation of tens of millions of new jobs.” During the 1990s, Speaker Gingrich pushed through legislation that cut taxes, restrained spending, left the nation with four balanced budgets and helped create 11 million new jobs.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Economist Laffer Endorses Newt Gingrich

Conservative Principles

Don't Abandon Conservative Message, Sell it Better

• 
• Star Parker
  
   Dec 26, 2011

Several new polls come as a jolt as they reflect the dismal state of mind of the American people.

As USA Today’s Susan Page sums up the latest USA Today/Gallup poll: the nation is “…more downbeat, more dissatisfied with its political leadership and more concerned about the country’s direction than at almost any point in modern times.”
New Pew Research Center polling shows a whopping 67 percent saying that most members of congress should not be re-elected. This compared to 51 percent saying this in October 2010 before the last congressional election.
President Obama’s current approval rating in the low forties, very low for any president at this point in his term, along with the very sour national mood, should point to shaky re-election prospects for him.
But from what I see, there are serious reasons why Republicans should be worried.
One is lack of excitement Republicans feel toward their own leading candidates.
Gallup now shows a fairly even contest whether it is Romney or Gingrich matched against Obama. But it also shows most of the Obama votes are pro-Obama whereas most of the Romney and Gingrich votes are anti-Obama rather than pro-Romney or pro-Gingrich.
Other new polling data from Pew should deeply concern Republicans.
Seventy seven percent agree that there is “too much power in hands of a few rich people and large corporations.” And only 36 percent say that the country’s economic system “is generally fair to most Americans.”
When the economy is the number one issue of concern to the American people, and when the central issue regarding the economy is the extent to which government should play a role in it, this is not good news for those arguing for less government.
The central economic event of the last decade was the 2008 financial collapse.
Conservatives have made a solid case showing that the cause was government policies pushing lower lending standards to promote home ownership. This case was bolstered this week by a lawsuit filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission against top executives at government mortgage entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, claiming they concealed the large volumes of sub-prime mortgages they were acquiring.
But the message that government caused the economic collapse does not appear to be reaching the grass roots.
President Obama has not backed off an inch in his pitch that the cause was inadequately regulated business. In his recent speech in Osawatomie, Kansas he went on about how “Banks and investors (were) allowed to keep packaging the risk and selling it off.”
Washington’s answer to the crisis reflects Obama’s take on things. The Dodd Frank Act enacted a major new regulatory regime on banks. Yet Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac remain standing, untouched, still sucking up taxpayer funds, and backing practically all new mortgages issued today.
It seems that Obama has captured public sentiment on this central and significant issue.
Some conclude this all means that Republicans must water down the conservative message and nominate a moderate.
But Americans crave answers, clarity, leadership. This call will not be answered by ambiguity.
Obama is no moderate. If Democrats can nominate a hard core liberal, why can’t Republicans offer a clear conservative alternative?
They can and must. But let’s remember basic salesmanship. If you’ve got the best product and its not selling, the problem is not the product but how it’s being sold.
The challenge in selling freedom only increases when times are hard and people become fearful.
The best salesperson is one who is totally sold themselves on their product.
We need a conservative leader who unwaveringly believes that a return to freedom and moral clarity is what this nation needs. And one who can convey this conviction and convince worried, struggling Americans that conservative principles are the recipe for national revival and will make their lives better.

 

Star Parker

Star Parker is founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can do About It.

Herman Cain: A Final Word

Herman Cain: A Final Word

Just click the link to read. Amen to the author, Lloyd Marcus. Herman Cain is out of the race, but America is not better off for it and conservatives have to learn to speak louder and stand taller to prevent this kind of media railroading of our candidates.

Class Warfare Rhetoric and Reality

Class Warfare Rhetoric and Reality

Stealing the Votes

We've all heard the stories about voting dead people, illegal immigrants, phony absentee ballots and transporting car loads of dubious characters from precinct to precinct to cast votes for a variety of people on the voter registration lists...  And some of us like me who have had some grass roots experience at the precinct level have actually seen these scams in action.  I am not suggesting that Republicans have never engaged in illegal election activities, but based on my knowledge, Republicans have never had the organizational machine in place to pull off mass voter fraud in comparison with the Democratic Party. It's like comparing Little League Baseball to Professional Baseball -- Republicans can't hold a candle to the Democrats when it comes to voter fraud.  So one solution to at least minimize voter fraud might be to require voters to present a photo ID to vote, but the NAACP has reacted strongly to that idea --- not just a strong objection, but an outrageous recommendation to ask the United Nations to intervene in our US election process. Read the following article for more information.

NAACP Taking Complaints About U.S. Voter Laws to United Nations

By Judson Berger

Published December 06, 2011

| FoxNews.com

•    

• 
  AP
  Shown here is the U.N. headquarters in New York City.

The NAACP is calling on the United Nations to intervene as it claims state governments are colluding to "block the vote" for minority communities ahead of the 2012 election -- a charge those governments vehemently deny.

The nation's biggest civil rights organization this week released a report that claimed a raft of new voting laws at the state level would disenfranchise minority voters. The report said 14 states passed 25 measures "designed to restrict or limit the ballot access of voters of color."

The report catalogued several categories of laws that have been passed largely by Republican-dominated legislatures and which Democrats have decried in recent months as tools of voter suppression. The new laws include requirements to present photo ID at the polls, voting restrictions on felons and limitations on registration and early voting periods.

Supporters of the laws describe them as common-sense measures meant to ensure the integrity of elections. In Tennessee, which is implementing a new photo ID law, elections coordinator Mark Goins dismissed the criticism and questioned why the NAACP would flag the United Nations over its concerns, calling that effort "a bit extreme."

"I don't know what the benefit of going to the U.N. would be," he said. "I can't imagine any authority whatsoever that they would have here in Tennessee."

But the NAACP described the new measures as part of a "concerted" effort to drive down minority turnout and is planning a multi-stage campaign to attract international attention.

To start, the group is planning a "Stand 4 Freedom" rally this Saturday across from the U.N. headquarters. Supporters are being asked to sign an online pledge which, among other demands, calls on the United Nations to "investigate and condemn voter suppression tactics in the United States."

Copies of the latest report are being sent to the United Nations, as well as attorneys general across the country and the Department of Justice. According to one newspaper report, the NAACP will follow up in March when it sends a delegation to Geneva, Switzerland, to present its case before the U.N. Human Rights Council -- a group known more for its sustained criticism of Israel than its attention to voting rights.

"We are experiencing an assault on voting rights that is historic, both in terms of its scope and intensity," the NAACP report said. It described the laws as a "direct response" to rising levels of minority voter participation in 2008 and the growth of those communities reflected in the 2010 Census.

The report cited several examples of voting restrictions that were passed or strengthened this year.

In 2011, seven state legislatures passed laws requiring voters to show photo ID before casting their ballots. Another state, Mississippi, approved such a law last month via ballot initiative.

Republican governors in Florida and Iowa also reversed measures meant to end restrictions on the voting rights of felons. About a half-dozen states tightened restrictions on registration periods and on early voting periods. Alabama and Kansas also passed measures to require proof of citizenship to register; Tennessee passed a similar but more narrowly tailored measure.

The NAACP and other critics of the laws claim new eligibility requirements to vote and register disproportionately impact black and Latino voters. The NAACP study said that while 11 percent of U.S. citizens don't have government-issued photo ID, 25 percent of voting-age black citizens fall in the same boat.

But officials in the affected states say they're taking extra steps to ensure voters who are eligible can meet the new requirements without much hassle.

In Tennessee, which has a photo ID law going into effect in January 2012, officials started offering free photo IDs at local DMV offices -- for voting purposes only.

Goins rejected the claim that the change would disenfranchise voters. He noted that his office established the position of "minority coordinator" to reach out to minority communities about the change.

"If you're an eligible voter, you're going to be fine. If you're an ineligible voter ... then you're going to have issues," he told FoxNews.com.

South Carolina voting officials are also offering two kinds of photo ID cards that would be free of charge -- one from the DMV and another special voter registration card.

Not all these laws are taking effect imminently. South Carolina, Alabama and Texas still need to have their laws approved by the Justice Department. In Rhode Island, that state's photo ID requirement doesn't go into effect until the beginning of 2014.

Still, detractors say the proposals taken together could have a devastating effect next year. A report on new voter laws by the Brennan Center for Justice estimated that the laws "could make it significantly harder" for more than 5 million eligible voters to vote in 2012.

"These new restrictions fall most heavily on young, minority and low-income voters, as well as on voters with disabilities," the Brennan Center report said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/06/naacp-taking-complaints-about-us-voter-laws-to-united-nations/#ixzz1foTIa6v7