Monthly Archives: April 2008

England’s Call to Repeal Our Declaration of Independence

April 30, 2008by Phyllis Schlafly
It’s a good thing that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s U.S. visit was upstaged by the dramatic reception Americans gave Pope Benedict XVI. Brown might have been booed if he hadn’t delivered what aides called his “signature” speech within the cloistered walls of Harvard’s Kennedy Center.
Brown’s tedious, hour-long speech impudently demanded that we issue a “Declaration of Interdependence” in order to submit to global governance. That’s another way of calling on us to repeal our Declaration of Independence.
No thanks for the advice, Mr. Brown. Brave Americans rose up and rejected Britain’s royalist rule in 1776, and we’ve gotten along mighty well without transatlantic interference in our government for more than two centuries. We certainly don’t want to reinstate any foreign supervision today.
The redundancy of Brown’s outrageous semantics was oppressive. His speech used the word global 69 times, globalization 7 times, and interdependence 13 times. He referred to Kennedy 19 times, lavishing fulsome praise on John F. (“his influence abides everywhere”), Robert (he sent forth “ripples of hope”), and Ted (“one of the greatest Senators in more than two centuries”).
Brown rejected the traditional concept of national sovereignty, which means an independent nation not subservient to any outside control, telling us to replace it with “responsible sovereignty,” which he defined as accepting what he calls our global “obligations.” Hold on to your pocketbook.
Brown admitted that his “main argument” is that we must accept “new global rules,” “new global institutions,” and “global networks.” Brown’s global rules include massive U.S. cash handouts and opening U.S. borders to the world.
Brown’s use of well-known American political phrases was tacky. He tried to morph FDR’s New Deal into a “New Global Deal,” and JFK’s New Frontier into “the New Frontier is that there is no frontier.”
Brown even slipped in an attempt at thought control: “Americans must learn to think inter-continentally.” He declaimed, “We are all internationalists now.”
Using the rhetorical device of inevitability, Brown warned us that his vision of the globalist future is “irreversible transformation.” He wants to “transcend states” and “transcend borders” as he builds the “architecture of a global society.”
Brown peddled the nonsense that the peoples of the world “subscribe to similar ideals.” He tried to tell us that all religions (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists) have “common values” and “similar ideals.” No, they certainly do not.
Brown wants to increase the power of the United Nations to become the source of “an international stand-by capacity of trained civilian experts, ready to go anywhere at any time,” and even be able to exercise “military force.” Americans do not intend to cede such authority to the corrupt UN.
The silliest part of Brown’s ponderous speech was his claim that “a global society” is “advancing democracy widely across the world.” In fact, he doesn’t even practice democracy in his own country.
Brown refused to allow the British people to vote on whether or not they want to accept the European Union (EU) constitution. He acquiesced in the plot of the constitution’s author, Valery Giscard d’Estaing, to put the EU constitution into effect by calling it a treaty so it did not have to be voted on by the people.
Brown was chicken about the treaty subterfuge and did not permit a photographic record of his participation. He sent his Foreign Secretary to perform the official treaty signing in front of cameras.
The EU constitution, now called the Treaty of Lisbon, requires all signers to surrender their sovereignty and democracy to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and judges in Strasbourg. The EU constitution takes away England’s right to pass its own laws, forces England to surrender more than 60 UK vetoes of EU decisions, and gives the EU bureaucracy and tribunals total control over England’s immigration policy.
Instead of a self-governing nation whose democratic system was developed over centuries, England is now ruled by what Margaret Thatcher called “the paper pushers in Brussels.”
Brown made his globalism speech emphatic by repeatedly invoking the words “New World Order.” The New World Order Brown tries to con the United States into accepting would mean taxing Americans for foreign handouts so immense they would make the Marshall Plan look puny, global warming rules to drastically reduce our standard of living, and putting American workers in a common labor pool with the world’s billions who subsist on less than $2 a day.
Gordon Brown invited us to march forward to globalism “where there is no path.” He’s correct that there is no path on which we can expect globalism to lead us to a better world; in fact every path toward global government is a surrender of our liberty and our prosperity.
Gordon Brown should go back home and study up on how Americans refused to accept orders from King George III.
Further Reading:
Quick Topic:
Global Governance/United Nations
North American Union
Read this column online.

Join Eagle Forum and get The Phyllis Schlafly Report delivered to your door every month: Annual subscription $20.
Best bargain in print! Easy to distribute to alert your friends.
Make a donation to Eagle Forum.

Eagle Forum
www.eagleforum.org
PO Box 618
Alton, IL 62002
— The following information is a reminder of your current mailing list subscription:
You are subscribed to the following list: Eagle E-Mail
Using the following email: nathan.j.morton@gmail.com
You may automatically unsubscribe from this list at any time by visiting the following URL:
<http://www.eagleforum.org/cgi_bin/dada/mail.cgi/u/eagle/>
The following physical address is associated with this mailing list:
Eagle Forum
PO Box 618
Alton, IL 62002
618-462-5415
Mailing List Powered by Dada Mail

Advertisements

Will The Right Sit It Out?

If John McCain wins the presidency, his comeback — after the bankrupt debacle his campaign had become in the summer of 2007 with his backing of the amnesty bill — will be the stuff of legend.

And as nominee, he is entitled to conduct his own campaign and be cut slack by a party whose brand name is now Enron.

That said, McCain seems to have decided to win by love-bombing the Big Media and putting miles between himself and the base.

Consider his “Forgotten Places” tour of last week.

It began in Selma, Ala., where McCain went to Edmund Pettis Bridge to hail John Lewis and the marchers night-sticked and hosed down by the Alabama State Troopers on the Montgomery march for voting rights.

Now that was a seminal movement in the fight for civil rights.

But this is not 1965. Today, John Lewis is a big dog in the “No-Whites-Need-Apply!” Black Caucus. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright is sermonizing White America. The Rev. Al Sharpton is trying to shut down the Big Apple. And the fight for equal rights is being led by Ward Connerly.

With no help from McCain, Connerly is trying to put on five state ballots a Civil Rights Initiative that declares white men are also equal and not to be denied their civil rights because of the color of their skin.

And where does McCain stand?

From Selma, McCain went to the Gee’s Bend Quilters Collective, where black ladies make the famous blankets. The stop could not but call to mind the hundreds of thousands of textile and apparel jobs in the Carolinas and Georgia lost after NAFTA and Most-Favored Nation for China, both of which McCain enthusiastically supported.

McCain’s next stop was Inez, Ky., where LBJ declared war on poverty. But LBJ’s war was a politically motivated scheme to shift wealth and power to government, which led to a pathological dependency among America’s poor, his own abdication and Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign against Big Government that ushered in the Conservative Decade.

McCain then went to New Orleans to backhand Bush for failing to act swiftly to rescue the victims of Katrina.

But the real failure of New Orleans was of the corrupt and incompetent regime of Mayor Ray Nagin and the men of New Orleans, who left 30,000 women and children stranded in a sea of stagnant water.

No doubt Bush hit the snooze button, but why the piling on?

Then McCain headed up to Youngstown, Ohio, to tell the folks their jobs are never coming back and NAFTA was a sweet deal.

But why, when America’s mini-mills and steel mills are among the most efficient on earth — in terms of man hours needed to produce a ton of steel — aren’t those jobs coming back?

Answer: It is due to the free-trade policies of Bush and McCain, which permit trade rivals to impose value-added taxes of 15 percent to 20 percent on steel imports from the United States while rebating those taxes on steel exports to the United States. We are getting it in the neck coming and going.

An America First trade and tax policy could have U.S. steel mills rising again, while those in Japan, China, Russia and Brazil would be shutting down as uncompetitive in the U.S. market.

But we no longer put America first.

The U.S. government burns its incense at the altar of the Global Economy. The losers are those guys in Youngstown McCain was lecturing on the beauty of NAFTA. And the winners are the CEOs who pull down seven-, eight- and even nine-figure annual packages selling out their country for the corporation.

Does McCain think $6 trillion in trade deficits since NAFTA, a dollar rotting away and 3.5 million manufacturing jobs lost under Bush was all inevitable? Does he think we can do nothing to stop the deindustrialization of a country that used to produce 96 percent of all it consumed?

Why should those guys in Youngstown vote for McCain?

So the feds can teach them how to shovel snow?

Even Hillary, whose husband did NAFTA with Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole’s help, now gets it.

Then McCain took a time out to denounce the North Carolina GOP for ads tying the Rev. Wright to Obama, and the pair to two Democratic congressional candidates. To their credit, the North Carolinians told McCain where to get off and are running the ads.

What does a McCain victory mean for conservatives?

Probably a veto on tax hikes and perhaps a fifth justice like Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito or John Roberts, to turn two pair into a full house. Fifty years after Warren, it could be game, set, match for the right.

But McCain may also mean more Middle East wars, more bellicosity, more manufacturing jobs lost, malingering in the culture wars, and more illegal aliens and amnesty.

In Pennsylvania, thousands of Republicans re-registered to vote Democratic, and 27 percent of the GOP votes went to Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul. McCain may just stretch this rubber band so far it snaps back in his face.


Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of “The Death of the West,” “The Great Betrayal,” “A Republic, Not an Empire” and “Where the Right Went Wrong.”

High Incarceration Rate Of Blacks Is Function Of Crime, Not Racism

By HEATHER MAC DONALD | Posted Monday, April 28, 2008 4:20 PM PT

The race industry and its elite enablers take it as self-evident that high black incarceration rates result from discrimination.

At a presidential primary debate this Martin Luther King Day, for instance, Sen. Barack Obama charged that blacks and whites “are arrested at very different rates, are convicted at very different rates, (and) receive very different sentences . . . for the same crime.”

Not to be outdone, Sen. Hillary Clinton promptly denounced the “disgrace of a criminal-justice system that incarcerates so many more African-Americans proportionately than whites.”

If a listener didn’t know anything about crime, such charges of disparate treatment might seem plausible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

After all, in 2006, blacks were 37.5% of all state and federal prisoners, though they’re under 13% of the national population. About one in 33 black men was in prison in 2006, compared with one in 205 white men and one in 79 Hispanic men. Eleven percent of all black males between the ages of 20 and 34 are in prison or jail.

The dramatic rise in the correctional population over the past three decades — to 2.3 million people at the end of 2007 — has only amplified the racial accusations against the criminal-justice system.

The favorite culprits for high black prison rates include a biased legal system, draconian drug enforcement and even prison itself. None of these explanations stands up to scrutiny.

The black incarceration rate is overwhelmingly a function of black crime. Insisting otherwise only worsens black alienation and further defers a real solution to the black crime problem.

Racial activists usually remain silent about that problem. But in 2005, the black homicide rate was more than seven times higher than that of whites and Hispanics combined, according to the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics.

From 1976 to 2005, blacks committed more than 52% of all murders in America. In 2006, the black arrest rate for most crimes was two to nearly three times blacks’ representation in the population. Blacks constituted 39.3% of all violent-crime arrests, including 56.3% of all robbery and 34.5% of all aggravated-assault arrests, and 29.4% of all property-crime arrests.

The advocates acknowledge such crime data only indirectly: by charging bias on the part of the system’s decision makers. As Obama suggested in the Martin Luther King debate, police, prosecutors and judges treat blacks and whites differently “for the same crime.”

But in fact, cops don’t over-arrest blacks and ignore white criminals. The race of criminals reported by crime victims matches arrest data. No one has ever come up with a plausible argument as to why crime victims would be biased in their reports.

Racial activists also allege that prosecutors overcharge and judges oversentence blacks. Backing up this bias claim has been the holy grail of criminology for decades — and the prize remains as elusive as ever.

In 1997, criminologists Robert Sampson and Janet Lauritsen concluded that “large racial differences in criminal offending,” not racism, explained why more blacks were in prison proportionately than whites and for longer terms.

A 1994 Justice Department survey of felony cases from the country’s 75 largest urban areas discovered that blacks actually had a lower chance of prosecution after a felony than whites did and that they were less likely to be found guilty at trial. After conviction, blacks were more likely to receive prison sentences, however — an outcome that reflected the gravity of their offenses as well as their criminal records.

Unfair drug policies are an equally popular explanation for black incarceration rates. Legions of pundits, activists and academics charge that the war on drugs is a war on minorities.

They point to federal crack penalties, the source of the greatest amount of misinformation in the race and incarceration debate. Under a 1986 law, five grams of crack triggers a mandatory minimum five-year sentence in federal court; powder-cocaine traffickers get the same five-year minimum for 500 grams.

The media love to target the federal crack penalties because crack defendants are likely to be black. In 2006, 81% of federal crack defendants were black while only 27% of federal powder-cocaine defendants were.

Since federal crack rules are more severe than those for powder, and crack offenders are disproportionately black, those rules must explain why so many blacks are in prison, the conventional wisdom holds.

But consider that in 2006, only 5,619 crack sellers were tried federally, 4,495 of them black. It’s going to take a lot more than 5,000 or so crack defendants a year to account for the 562,000 black prisoners in state and federal facilities at the end of 2006 — or the 858,000 black prisoners in custody overall, if one includes the population of county and city jails.

Moreover, the press almost never mentions the federal methamphetamine-trafficking penalties, which are identical to those for crack. In 2006, the 5,391 sentenced federal meth defendants were 54% white, 39% Hispanic and 2% black. No one calls the federal meth laws anti-Hispanic or anti-white.

The press has also served up a massive dose of crack revisionism aimed at proving the racist origins of the war on crack. Crack was never a big deal, the revisionist story line goes. The belief that crack was an inner-city scourge was a racist illusion.

The assertion that concern about crack was motivated by racism ignores a key fact: Black leaders were the first to sound the alarm about the drug, as Harvard law professor Randall Kennedy documents in “Race, Crime, and the Law.” These politicians were reacting to a devastating outbreak of inner-city violence and addiction unleashed by the new form of cocaine.

The crack market differed radically from the discreet phone transactions and private deliveries that characterized powder-cocaine distribution: Volatile young dealers sold crack on street corners, using guns to establish their turf. The national spike in violence in the mid-1980s was largely due to the crack trade, and its victims were overwhelmingly black inner-city residents.

It takes shameless sleight of hand to turn an effort to protect blacks from harm into a conspiracy against them. If Congress had ignored black legislators’ calls to increase cocaine-trafficking penalties, the outcry among the groups now crying racism would have been deafening.

To be sure, a legislative bidding war drove federal crack penalties ultimately to an arbitrary and excessive point; the current movement to reduce those penalties is appropriate. But it was not racism that led to the crack sentencing scheme.

Critics follow up their charges about crack with several false claims about drugs and imprisonment.

The first is that drug enforcement has been the most important cause of the overall rising incarceration rate since the 1980s. Not true.

Violent crime has always been the leading driver of prison growth, especially since the 1990s. In state prisons, where 88% of the nation’s inmates are housed, violent and property offenders make up over 3 1/2 times the number of state drug offenders.

Next, critics blame drug enforcement for rising racial disparities in prison. Again, the facts say otherwise. In 2006, blacks were 37.5% of the 1,274,600 state prisoners. If you remove drug prisoners from that population, the percentage of black prisoners drops to 37%.

Finally, race and anti-incarceration activists argue that we are sending harmless low-level offenders to prison, disrupting communities. To the contrary: In the overwhelming majority of cases, prison remains a lifetime achievement award for persistence in criminal offending.

The JFA Institute, an anti-incarceration advocacy group, estimated in 2007 that in only 3% of violent victimizations and property crimes does the offender end up in prison. And taking criminals out of poor inner-city communities has allowed the many law-abiding residents there to get on with their lives, freed from constant fear.

When prominent figures such as Barack Obama make sweeping claims about racial unfairness in the criminal-justice system, they play with fire. The evidence is clear: Black prison rates result from crime, not racism. The dramatic drop in crime in the 1990s, to which stricter sentencing policies unquestionably contributed, has freed thousands of law-abiding inner-city residents from the bondage of fear.

The continuing search for the chimera of criminal-justice bigotry is a useless distraction that diverts energy and attention from the crucial imperative of helping more inner-city boys stay in school — and out of trouble.

Mac Donald is a Manhattan Institute senior fellow and a contributing editor to its magazine, City Journal. This piece is adapted from the spring 2008 issue.

 

Lifesaving Leeway

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, April 28, 2008 4:20 PM PT

War On Terror: The White House again confirms that homeland protection is its top priority. The Justice Department has told Congress it’s reasonable to conclude that tough interrogation is legal when it stops terrorism.


Read More: Global War On Terror


 

Nearly six decades have passed since the Third Geneva Convention, governing the treatment of prisoners of war, was adopted. Its language is that of the lofty, well-intentioned idealism of the post-World War II years that also brought us the establishment of the United Nations, NATO and the state of Israel.

The success of those endeavors has, of course, been mixed. The U.N. is a corrupt black hole of fiscal waste and international ineptitude. NATO, on the other hand, won the Cold War. Israel is the only firmly established representative government in the Middle East, though it has not yet provided the long-suffering Jewish people with the kind of peaceful homeland for which they yearn.

Read with 21st-century eyes, there is an unmistakable naivete to the language of Geneva.

“Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated . . . protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.” The agreement insists that “no physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information,” and those who refuse to answer can’t be “threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.”

In the context of the global war on terror, endorsing a to-the-letter interpretation of Geneva’s language — which is undeniably vague and lacking in specifics — would be suicidal for the U.S. Keeping high-ranking terrorists who have information we can use to save hundreds, or thousands, of lives in custody and not taking steps to extract that knowledge would be a crime against Americans.

Beyond that, it would signal to the free world’s adversaries that we are not serious about fighting back — which would serve to embolden them and boost their recruitment efforts around the globe.

So while anti-war Democrats in Congress consider it shocking and damning that the Bush Justice Department would look for wiggle room in Geneva, those who see this world war with any realism understand its position as perfectly rational and honorable.

“The fact that an act is undertaken to prevent a threatened terrorist attack, rather than for the purpose of humiliation or abuse, would be relevant to a reasonable observer in measuring the outrageousness of the act,” Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian Benczkowski wrote to Congress.

Citing chapter and verse from the Geneva Convention over the ashes of a U.S. city will be of no solace to the dead or their loved ones.

 

Obama’s Fox Trot

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, April 28, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Election ’08: Barack Obama’s interview on “Fox News Sunday” showed a liberal uncomfortable with the truth. He is often compared to JFK, a leader who made tough choices. But Obama turns out to be a profile in porridge.


Read More: Election 2008 | Media & Culture


 

When Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was asked by Bill Moyers in a PBS interview about Obama’s attempt to separate himself from Wright’s anti-American and racist remarks in Obama’s Philadelphia speech, Wright said: “I do what I do. He does what politicians do. So that what happened in Philadelphia where he had to respond to the sound bites, he responded as a politician.”

Obama continued to respond as a politician in an interview with Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday.” He reiterated that he hadn’t heard Wright’s more famous quotations and sidestepped Wallace’s request to provide examples of what he did hear that he also found objectionable.

Instead, he invoked the name of the Rev. Martin Luther King, comparing King’s speeches opposing the war in Vietnam to Wright’s rants that 9/11 was America’s chickens coming home to roost and AIDS was invented in a U.S. government lab to kill black people.

Why not? After all, Obama once compared Wright to his “typical white” grandmother. Maybe he considers King a typical black preacher in the Wright mold. But King had a dream; Barack Obama has a nightmare.

Asked about his friendship with Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, Obama dismissed Ayers as “a 60-plus-year-old individual who lives in my neighborhood, who did something that I deplore 40 years ago when I was 6 or 7 years old. By the time I met him, he (was) a professor of education at the University of Illinois.”

Ayers was more than somebody with whom Obama served on a board. Ayers helped launch Obama’s political career in 1996 when Illinois state Sen. Alice Palmer introduced him to some of the district’s influential liberals. What was essentially Obama’s first fundraiser was held at the home of Ayers and his terrorist wife, the equally infamous Bernadine Dohrn.

Wallace inquired about Obama’s boast that he could cross party lines to get things done, and asked the senator for examples of his independence and bipartisanship. Wallace pointed out how John McCain bucked his party’s line on issues like immigration and worked with Democrats on issues like campaign finance reform.

Aside from mumbling something about government regulations, Obama couldn’t provide any. Obama has a history of ducking tough issues, whether in the Illinois legislature or the United States Senate.

As noted by the Washington Post’s David Ignatius, Obama, after being elected to the Illinois senate in 1996, “gained a reputation for skipping tough votes” such as a key one on gun control in December 1999 because he was vacationing in his home state of Hawaii. Ignatius quotes a Chicago politician as saying that “the myth developed that when there was a tough vote, he was gone.”

Obama certainly wasn’t part of the 2005 “Gang of 14” bipartisan coalition that sought to break the logjam on judicial nominations in the U.S. Senate. McCain was. The nominee who prompted the famous “nuclear option” threat was the current chief justice of the United States, John Roberts.

“I think that Judge Roberts deserves an up-or-down vote, and I hope that the other members of that group agree with me,” said Sen. McCain. They did. Half the Democrats in the Senate wound up voting for Bush’s Supreme Court nominee, even Pat Leahy and Russ Feingold. But not Barack Obama.

On taxes, Obama again sounded confused about capital gains. He said he was “mindful that we’ve got to keep our capital gains tax to a point where we can actually get more revenue.” So why does he want to almost double the rate? He claimed “that’s not something that’s going to affect the average person with a 401(k),” even though it’s a tax hike on the 100 million Americans who own stock.

He defended his proposal to raise the earnings cap on Social Security taxes by saying it affects only the “3% to 4% of Americans who are above $102,000 in income every year.” As former Reagan adviser Lawrence Kudlow notes, a firefighter married to a schoolteacher can easily double that amount.

Obama attacked McCain’s plan to make permanent the Bush tax cuts he once opposed. But McCain’s opposition was in the context of unrestrained federal spending, something Obama’s proposals indicate he is a big fan of, almost as much as raising taxes.

According to a study by Tracy Foertsch and Ralph Rector of the Heritage Foundation, letting the Bush tax cuts expire, as Obama wants, would reduce our annual GDP by $100 billion with the loss of up to 900,000 jobs. Over 10 years, taxes would increase by about $1.7 trillion. For 116 million Americans paying taxes, that’s an annual tax hike of about $1,800 a year.

Aided by a fawning media, Obama’s rise has been a political phenomenon. But he’s never been tested in any real way or taken the lead on any controversial issue. He’s a liberal who would raise our taxes at home and surrender to our enemies abroad.

He has no legislative achievements at any level and wouldn’t even be a U.S. senator if both the GOP and Democratic nominees hadn’t self-destructed in local sex scandals. Obama got the Democratic nomination by default and crushed political gadfly Alan Keyes.

Obama is no John F. Kennedy, and John McCain is no Alan Keyes.

 

Fraud Daylight

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, April 28, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Elections: The Supreme Court got it right Monday in ruling 6-3 (with even liberal John Paul Stevens agreeing) that states are free to require voters to produce photo identification at the polls.


Read More: Judges & Courts


 

Everyone in the country should be pleased with the news. But, of course, not everyone is. It’s almost as if some are disturbed that the ruling will make it harder to commit voter fraud.

The American Civil Liberties Union, for instance. It was the ACLU’s suit against the state of Indiana over its requirement that voters need to produce a photo ID at the polls that led to the Supreme Court case.

Ken Falk, the organization’s Indiana legal director, said he was “extremely disappointed” by the decision. It is the position of the ACLU that ID laws place a burden on voters, and the right to vote, Falk says, “is the most important right.”

The right to vote cannot be found in the Constitution, so we’re not sure from what source Falk is drawing his legal opinion. Best we can tell, voting is a privilege. Important, yes, but it’s far more important that our elections are free — or as free as possible — of fraud.

Democrats still nursing their wounds from the 2000 presidential election mess — which they engineered when they brought in the lawyers — should be the first ones demanding legitimate elections. But they’re not.

Democrats across the board are against laws requiring photo IDs at the polls, even if a voter without an ID is free to cast a provisional ballot that’s counted if the voter returns within 10 days and shows either proper identification or demonstrates that one of the law’s exemptions applies, as is the policy in Indiana.

Their objections are so bitter that it looks like they’re inviting — or perhaps are accustomed to relying on — voter fraud.

It’s baffling that anyone could actually oppose such a minimum and entirely reasonable standard. What could possibly be wrong with voters, in a day when identity theft is common, having to prove that they are who they say they are?

The only rational response is “nothing.” Yet it’s not hard to find someone who will argue that the requirement places too great a burden on Americans to acquire a photo ID with which to vote.

But as the Democrats’ own expert witness noted when testifying during the federal trial phase of the Indiana case, 99% of the state’s voting-age residents already have the necessary ID.

We have no reason to think that the percentage would be much different in any other state. There’s nothing unique about Indiana that makes its people more likely than those in other states to have the proper ID for voting.

For anyone worried about the disenfranchisement of that 1%, consider that photo IDs are not hard to get. In Georgia, for one example, a resident who does not have a driver’s license can get a free photo ID from the state.

As the case wended its way through the justice system, the Indiana law was often called the strictest of its kind in the nation. If that’s the case, then our elections are far too vulnerable to fraud.

How many more rancid elections — such as the 2004 Washington gubernatorial race, in which 1,678 illegal votes were cast and at least eight dead people “voted” in King County — will have to happen before all 50 states get serious about cheating?

At least with Monday’s Supreme Court ruling, states that are interested in protecting the legitimacy of elections now have a clear template to follow.

The path should be open as well with the ACLU. Having been told that its tolerance of voter fraud does not inspire confidence in our system, it has lost its ability on this issue to block sensible laws.

 

Chris Wallace Fox News Sunday Interview with Obama

My reaction to the Chris Wallace Fox News Sunday Interview with Obama is thus:

Obama passes the [scratch and] sniff test with flying colors; he is well-polished and statesmanlike. However, his positions are anything but conciliatory. Insofar as the issues he is a hard leftist. In order to explain away those divisive positions, Obama pursues an oratorical stratagem consisting of tall tales and circular rationale (e.g., moral equivalence). He is a master of sophistry.

To underscore the point, in one instance, when asked to justify his decision on voting against the nomination of Chief Justice John Roberts, Obama said that, although he voted against the nomination, he ‘vehemently defended’ the individual amongst various left-wing loons on the Daily Kos blog site.

Furthermore, Obama gave virtually the same answers to questions regarding abortion, war, taxes and the like.

There is a strong racial component to Obama’s campaign, one that is carried on, in the words of [one of Bill O’Reilly’s guests with a Ph.D I don’t know his name], ‘in subterranean fashion; it is very inferential.’ To the fact that 97% of blacks in Pennsylvania voted for Obama, the self-same Ph.D suggests that when black people vote for a black over a white, it’s ‘racial,’ but when whites vote for a white over a black, it’s ‘racist.’

The difference, this Afro-American suggests, is that when blacks vote monolithically [for a black over a white], it is somehow noble, but that in reverse [i.e., when whites vote for a white over a black], it is ignoble. Therefore, according to this logic, it is ignoble to support a white over a black – across the board. Ergo, it is a morally superior thing to support black people over white people. In other words, black people’s interests and values, according to this view, are more important than white people’s interests and values. Therefore, black people are better than whites. Therefore blacks must empower themselves over whites and whites must assist blacks in empowering themselves over [whites]. Therefore, whites must subjugate themselves to blacks. Therefore, blacks must be whites’ masters.

 To the question of NC being a state with a high percentage of blacks, and therefore, of Clinton having little if any chance of winning in that state (versus a black opponent), the aforesaid principle, according to the aforesaid view, must be said to apply [in like manner].