The Paddock

Eric Holder remembers that this is one of the tactics used by southeners to keep minoritys from voting. IMO he isnt worried as much about a few voting illegally as he is about this being used to keep legal voters from voting as has been the history in some states. Women, the poor, the elderly and minoritys are less likely to have a photo ID than the elite 1 percent.

Btw... someone had to find a way to live'in this board up again. It seems to be working.

Thanks!

Holder may know his actions won't help Obama win Texas, but he also knows, that his actions are necessary, in order to improve the chances of any liberal politician getting elected to office (not only in Texas, but in any State where he can manipulate voting practices).

Voting fraud on the left has become a common practice... they will stop at nothing. State laws, the Constitution, ethics, morals, Will of the People... none of that matters to what is, the most corrupt party and White House administration in American history.

Don't get me wrong... I'm not referring Democrat American voters. It's the far left Liberal end of the party who are corrupt as hell.... and sadly, that's who the left has elected to lead their party. Thank God, polls are showing an influx of conservative, moderate Democrats who are moving their votes to the right... and making every effort to distance themselves from Obama and the "Liberal" party.

Source of fact?

I think it's already been proven and widely known, that ACORN (a liberal organization) for example, has committed several voter fraud offenses. When cartoon characters and dead people are mysteriously participating in the voting process, then the Liberal party has only itself to blame, for any and all distrust and/or voter fraud accusations that's aimed in their direction.

Liberals and Obama especially, have a bad habit of maintaining shady relationships... with even more shady and corrupt groups or organizations. They make it much worse on themselves... and attract more public distrust and accusations, by continuing to make excuses for (and defend) those same proven corrupt organizations.

The funny thing is... after such foolishness and bringing it on themselves, they still wanna bitch and moan about what the other side is accusing them of. That's like jumping into a lake and then, bitching about getting wet.

And Kudos to Pennsylvania for passing a voter ID law now too!

And it's funny how the NAACP is tacking the US voter ID laws to the United Nations... Screw the UN! That corrupt organization has no power over the Constitution. That the left wants to acquiesce to a foreign power is disgusting.

If you vote in Kentucky, you don't have to show a picture ID to vote. I do, because it's the easiest thing to get to in my pocket--but there are various forms of acceptable ID and they don't have to be either government issued or have a picture.

And you don't even have to have that if you are personally known to an election official--or you can show up with two people who will swear you are who you are.

I tend to agree with you that presenting the ID should not be a big deal. The constitutional argument is that there is nothing in there that requires a person to be properly identified. All those other things in life--driving, flying, opening a bank account--are privileges to which you do not have a right. Voting is a right for every citizen (although it took a while for the constitution to get that down right). Regardless, that's Republican originalist b.s. I'm generally for expediency.

My only point is that this is a political quagmire into which you've allowed yourself to be sucked Voter fraud is not a big problem. Voter disenfranchisement is not a big problem either. We've got much bigger problems than both of these--but extremists on the right and extremists on the left would rather fight over these non-problems than address substantial issues.

You won't buy a gun without an ID.

Does the government require you to show an ID--I don't think so (some states or localities might differ).

The federal government does abridge the right to purchase guns by identifying certain individuals (mostly minors and convicted criminals) to whom it is illegal to sell guns. Therefore, part of any reputable gun dealer's due diligence process will be to require proper identification. Did we end up with a de facto ID requirement for guns? Yes, but it stems from an effort to abridge the rights of some citizens (an abridgement that most of us would agree with). We have the same abridgement on voters--minors and convicted felons can't vote, either.

The big difference I see is that you do have to register to vote. To register, you have to be properly identified and you have to be checked out on some level (proper age, no rights restricted by felony convictions, proper residence). In some states, you need a permit to own or purchase a gun but in many (such as Kentucky) you don't.