It's the most ridiculous and uncontroversial issue in the world, but leave it to a liberal/Democrat to make it serious and controversial. According to them, demanding an official picture I.D. to vote "disenfranchises" poor people, particularly poor minorities.
How? No freaking idea.
But this, apparently, is why most Republicans -- nay, most Americans -- believe that voter I.D. is just plain common sense.
Because it is.
Think of all the things you have to do in your lives that require an official photo I.D.: from driving a car to boarding an airplane to renting a video to borrowing a library book to buying a bottle of liquor or pack of cigarettes. I've never heard of a single example of a minority, poor or otherwise, complaining about being barred from any of these activities because access to such I.D.'s were financially or otherwise prohibitive.
Yet for some reason, the notion that engaging in the very important civic activity of voting should require a proper state issued and most likely free (i.e., taxpayer-funded) voter I.D., is raaaacist. Right?
Wrong, according to liberal/Democrats who never waste a moment poisoning an important issue with wholly unsubstantiated claims of discrimination against minorities and other poor people.
As the 2012 presidential election approaches, Eric Holder, arguably the most despicable and politically abusive Attorney General in U.S. history, is playing the worn out race card to prevent states from implementing voter I.D. An editorial in last Friday's WSJ reads in part:
The Obama Administration's re-election mobilization continues: Witness Eric Holder's attempt to play the race card and perhaps twist the law in a campaign against voter identification laws.
In the Attorney General's telling, the movement in the states to require voters to show some ID is a revival of minority disenfranchisement a la Jim Crow. A growing number of minorities, he said in a speech last week, are now worried about "the same disparities, divisions and problems" that beset the country in 1965 and "many Americans, for the first time in their lives . . . now have reason to believe that we are failing to live up" to the promise of democracy for all.
If you haven't heard about this national crisis, perhaps that's because you don't travel in Mr. Holder's political circles. He is merely repeating the howls of groups like the NAACP and the George Soros-funded Brennan Center, which claim without evidence that voter ID laws hurt minorities. ...
Mr. Holder says the Civil Rights Division led by Thomas Perez will review the policies and impartially "apply the law." If that's true, Mr. Perez's job should be easy: In 2005, Justice approved a nearly identical law in Georgia. In 2008's Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the Supreme Court likewise ruled 6-3 that an Indiana law requiring photo ID at the ballot box was constitutional.
The court's liberal lion, then-Justice John Paul Stevens, wrote for the majority that Indiana's law "is unquestionably relevant to the State's interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process." Indiana offered free voter ID cards to all citizens, so the inconvenience of picking up an ID at the Department of Motor Vehicles wasn't an undue burden and was reasonably balanced by the state's interest in reducing fraud, Justice Stevens wrote.
That isn't good enough for Mr. Holder, who says his department's priority is to "expand the franchise." But expand it for whom, exactly? The vast majority of voters already have the necessary photo ID, which they need to get through airport security or register for a grocery-store savings card.
Of course it's not good enough for Holder, or any liberal/Democrat because the whole issue is based on a lie. In other words, they're all F.O.C.
Directly related to this lie about "minority voter suppression" is another thing Democrats are F.O.C. about: Voter fraud. This crime, libs/Dems will tell you, is a Republican tactic. You all remember the Bush-Gore fiasco of 2000, right? How did Bush ultimately win? Republican voter fraud. But that wasn't enough. When Bush won decisively in 2004 against John Kerry, how did the Dems explain that? Republican vote fraud.
Yet, the vast majority of election fraud convictions of recent years has been committed byDemocrats. Just last week four Democrats in New York state pled guilty to voter fraud in a 2009 primary. And the week before that, the chairman of Indiana's Democrat Party resigned as investigations into voter fraud in the 2008 presidential primary got underway.
And in 2010, Obama's tight buds at ACORN -- i.e., Democrats -- have been convicted in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, Washington state, and elsewhere.
And need we rehash the way the bitter partisan Democrat Al Franken squeezed his way into the Senate for Minnesota in 2008?
Make no mistake: Democrat opposition to voter I.D. is all because it makes voter fraud significantly more difficult to get away with. And Democrats need fraudulent votes to win elections. They need felons to vote. They need illegal immigrants to vote. They need dead people to vote. And they apparently need Mickey Mouse and Adolf Hitler to vote as well. All the while accusing Republicans of engaging in voter fraud!
So pardon me for saying so, Eric Holder, but you and your race-baiting minions of liberals/Democrats are F.O.C.
*F.O.C. = Full of cr@p (But you probably figured that out by now)
Recent Comments