Gay Patriot Header Image

One person, one vote

A democratic republic is not honest or fair unless it upholds the principle of “one person, one vote”. All Americans should want to uphold that principle, strictly.

But not all do. Both historically and today, some may benefit from the principle’s two enemies: discrimination and fraud. How do we best combat both discrimination and fraud, in our voting processes?

The Supreme Court has just struck down part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Superficially it sounds like some people could have just lost their voting rights or something, and Yahoo!’s coverage starts out in a mournful tone. But let’s consider the substance, on both sides.

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, reauthorized by Congress for an additional 25 years in 2006, gives the federal government the ability to pre-emptively reject changes to election law in states and counties that have a history of discriminating against minority voters. The law covers nine states and portions of seven more, most of them in the South. The formula used to decide which states are subject to this special scrutiny (set out in Section 4 of the law) is based on decades-old voter turnout and registration data, the justices ruled, which is unfair…[because] many of these states now have near-equal voter turnout rates between minorities and whites.

“The coverage formula that Congress reauthorized in 2006 ignores these developments, keeping the focus on decades-old data relevant to decades-old problems,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion. “Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”

The Justice Department used Section 5 of the law to block voter ID laws in Texas and South Carolina last year…

The court has effectively now put the ball back in Congress’ court, writing in its decision that it is up to Congress to write a new formula that is based on current data. States or counties that fit the new formula could still be subject to federal “preclearance” of changes to their elections procedures…

The story there seems to be: In the 60s, they were justly worried about discrimination and passed a law giving the federal government a great deal of power over some States. Today, fifty years later, much (if not most) of the discrimination problem has receded, the States are worried about fraud, and have begun to pass voter ID laws to combat fraud. The Obama administration has used the 1965 law aggressively to block those fraud-fighting efforts. And Chief Justice Roberts, writing for a SCOTUS majority, has just said to knock it off; do a fresh study of the real problem.

For completeness, let’s look at Justice Ginsburg’s objections. The Yahoo! article continues:

In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writes the “sad irony” of Roberts’ decision is that it strikes down the key part of the Voting Rights Act because it has been so successful at preventing racial discrimination. “Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet,” she writes. Ginsburg also slams the court’s majority for relying on turnout and registration rates “as if that were the whole story” and ignoring so-called second-generation laws and regulations designed to make it harder for minorities to vote…

But Roberts didn’t throw out preclearance; he only said, re-validate its basis to make sure it’s fair, before you use it again. Ginsburg’s imagery, of throwing out your umbrella in a rainstorm, is vivid but possibly misplaced. She assumes that we live in a racial “rainstorm” whose intensity is virtually unchanged from the 1950s/60s. But if that were so, we would not have an African-American President.

On the above information, I’m with Roberts: while problems of discrimination may remain, and any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress should indeed take a fresh look at the real problem. Congress should not make a lazy assumption that this is still the 1950s or 60s, nor that efforts to fight the problem of voter fraud must automatically be illegitimate.

Share

43 Comments

  1. Exactly.

    The easy way to answer people like Ginsberg is to get them to confirm that they are racists who would discriminate against minorities if Federal law didn’t restrain them from doing so.

    When they blubber about that, then ask them why, if they’re not racists, they are demanding that the Federal government treat them as if they automatically are.

    It’s the same as with gun control. The underlying reason for it is the need of liberals to have their fascist totalitarian control so that they can punish and harass those who disagree with them. When you force them to acknowledge that the laws they are demanding were never meant to apply to THEM, it opens peoples’ eyes immediately.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 25, 2013 @ 2:18 pm - June 25, 2013

  2. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion. “Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”

    Coming from a court of law and a Chief Justice in particular, this language is antithetical to principled jurisprudence. If voting fraud and voting discrimination (another form of voting fraud) are ‘current conditions’, they need to be handled not with a changing of law to reflect them but with laws that establish fraud, recognize it when it occurs, and provide some basis for prosecution for those who engage in it. Court decisions should ideally be consistent with a qualified individual’s right to cast a vote; current conditions (which imply they are mutable and thus malleable) should not dictate whether such a principle is consistently applied.

    In citing the temporal nature of race relations as the basis of his decision, Roberts implicitly agrees with the idea that a legal system (the Constitution and Bill of Rights, say) is fluid and must be open to change and interpretation. Regardless of whether the direction such a decision takes the court (such as one that I prefer), I object to the language used in its literal justification. Such an issue is certainly within the purview of the Supreme Court; the validity of elections is not the equivalent the proper use of cell phones or liquor control.

    Comment by Ignatius — June 25, 2013 @ 2:23 pm - June 25, 2013

  3. Any voting fraud that exists today is designed to get around the antiquated rules laid out in the VRA. Various sections of the law, not just Section 4, are almost certainly out of date. But no Congressman or politician would ever come forward and introduce anything to change the VRA, as they would, especially if that person was also a Republican, be labeled a racist.

    This is a flaw in all laws. I’ve long advocated for a strict sunset,period for all laws, and a review procedure to evaluate not only the law’s effectiveness, but also, if the law is to be renewed, how the law should be updated to better serve the public in regard to societal / demographic changes that have occurred since the original law was passed.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 25, 2013 @ 2:32 pm - June 25, 2013

  4. “Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet,”

    Uh, no. It’s like putting away your umbrella when it stops raining.

    What is Constitutional about treating some states’ voting practices differently than others, based on 50-year-old data? I thought liberals were all about this “change” stuff.

    Comment by alanstorm — June 25, 2013 @ 2:35 pm - June 25, 2013

  5. I’ve long advocated for a strict sunset,period for all laws, and a review procedure to evaluate not only the law’s effectiveness, but also, if the law is to be renewed, how the law should be updated to better serve the public in regard to societal / demographic changes that have occurred since the original law was passed.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 25, 2013 @ 2:32 pm

    Unfortunately, your suggestion makes far too much sense and strips the elites of the control over the masses that they feverishly crave, which is why, sadly, it’s not likely to happen.

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 25, 2013 @ 2:42 pm - June 25, 2013

  6. If voting fraud and voting discrimination (another form of voting fraud) are ‘current conditions’, they need to be handled not with a changing of law to reflect them but with laws that establish fraud, recognize it when it occurs, and provide some basis for prosecution for those who engage in it.

    And indeed, the Voting Rights Act remains intact in this regard. Since all the Supremes did was strike an antiquated formula that used obsolete data, the…right…to sue with proof of actual voting fraud, or any other voting related misbehavior, remains in place. All that’s been eliminated is the government’s opportunity for prior restraint, a thing that has long been held unconstitutional in many other areas.

    In citing the temporal nature of race relations as the basis of his decision, Roberts implicitly agrees with the idea that a legal system (the Constitution and Bill of Rights, say) is fluid and must be open to change and interpretation.

    No, his opinion is a reminder that such must be open to change. Only a Ginsburg or a Thurgood Marshall persist in the fiction that that laws are open to interpretation. Of course, the Constitution is open to change; Article V shows the way. And it has been changed, some 17 times beyond the Bill of Rights–on average more than once a generation.

    Still, I could wish, as did Justice Thomas in his separate concurring opinion, that all of the prior restraint aspects of the VRA had been struck.

    Eric Hines

    Comment by E Hines — June 25, 2013 @ 3:08 pm - June 25, 2013

  7. I understand that the commentators over at MSNBC are in utter shock. My guess that the entire Democrat Party is in complete shock. Of course Eric Holder fainted and fallen to the floor. I can’t wait until the next State of the Union address when President Obama lectures the Supreme Court on the United States Constitution. If he does, they should all get up and walk out. Even the four who voted against this decision.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — June 25, 2013 @ 3:11 pm - June 25, 2013

  8. No, his opinion is a reminder that such must be open to change.

    Using ‘current conditions’ as a guiding principle re. whether an individual’s vote is respected agrees with, essentially, any direction a law may take. My objection is his use of language. As I wrote above, even that the direction the court takes is one I prefer (per this particular case), the reasoning implied in Roberts’ written decision is suspect.

    Comment by Ignatius — June 25, 2013 @ 3:39 pm - June 25, 2013

  9. voting fraud and voting discrimination (another form of voting fraud)

    Not directly. Fraud is when you create an illegitimate vote (like multiple votes, non-resident votes, or voting on behalf of a dead person). While discrimination is when your one, legitimate vote is negated/prevented.

    If you want to argue that they’re morally equivalent or that discrimination can be viewed as a species of “fraud” broadly understood, fine, no problem. Although you could as easily argue the reverse, that fraud (narrowly understood) is a species of “discrimination” broadly understood, since the end result of fraud (narrowly understood) is that honest people are discriminated against in having their one, legitimate vote be worth less.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 25, 2013 @ 4:35 pm - June 25, 2013

  10. I’m using the term ‘voting fraud’ in the sense of facilitating a fraudulent outcome. Preventing a legitimate vote and creating an illegitimate one, for example, both satisfy.

    Comment by Ignatius — June 25, 2013 @ 4:45 pm - June 25, 2013

  11. I consider ‘voting (or voter) fraud’ a more general term than ‘voting (or voter) discrimination’. Voter discrimination implies, to me, a more specific type of fraud such as race-based vote suppression. Voter fraud is, to me, a more general term that could include a number of practices. Were I to draw a Venn diagram, voter discrimination would be a sub-species of fraud.

    Comment by Ignatius — June 25, 2013 @ 4:51 pm - June 25, 2013

  12. The really sad thing about this ruling was that it was too close. if Obama gets to appoint two more justices to the Supreme Court, we can all say good-bye to even thinking about reasonable rulings.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — June 25, 2013 @ 5:29 pm - June 25, 2013

  13. @sonic – a working sunset provision would cut the size of government in half. I suspect that’s why this good idea won’t be implemented (and accounts for continuing existence of Head Start, the Dept of Educ, Dept of Energy, TSA, the war in A-stan, &c).

    Uselessness and malfeasance are big (gummint) business.

    You can be sure that if the VRA were magically uncovering under-voting groups that lean right, the libs would have no trouble with the SCOTUS ruling. E.g.: if poll workers turned away voters with Gadsden flag stickers on their cars, they’d be praised).

    There are no meaningful impediments to voting these days (and, IMHO, perhaps it’s too easy).

    Comment by KCRob (SoCalRobert) — June 25, 2013 @ 9:13 pm - June 25, 2013

  14. More bad news for the libtards – our state attorney general is going to implement voter ID laws immediately:

    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/06/25/texas-ag-tells-janine-turner-that-scotus-voting-rights-act-decision-is-a-huge-win-for-equality/

    Sanity has prevailed in the Union.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — June 25, 2013 @ 10:08 pm - June 25, 2013

  15. An ID is a document granted to you by the state. An individual is beholden to petition the government bureaucracy to work efficiently and grant ID’s to those who meet the criteria set by the state.
    Therefore with voter ID laws, the right to vote is only extended to those who the state deems privileged enough to grant an ID. So voting will no longer be a right, but instead a privilege given to you by the state.

    This is what conservatives want?

    Comment by mike — June 26, 2013 @ 6:30 am - June 26, 2013

  16. Oh mikey boy, the facts the facts are calling…

    Most if not all of the voter ID laws require the state to provide IDs.

    Why do you want people ineligible to vote voting? Why do you hate democracy? Why do you want to encourage criminal activity.

    Is this what liberals like you want, mike?

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 26, 2013 @ 8:23 am - June 26, 2013

  17. Voter Suppression?
    I live in a county where typical election turnouts are less than 20-30%—and that’s of those registered to vote. In our last state-wide election, I was the 5th-voter in a district of approx. 700 registered voters and an eligible-population of nearly a thousand adults…and the polls had already been open for 4-hrs!! The election held before, for our municipal council, I was the 18th-voter 15-mins. before the polls closed. It was 745pm and the polls had been open since 600am nearly 14-hrs before….

    Uncontested elections and gerrymandered-districts that make incumbency-assured and elections outcomes nearly-guaranteed undermines voter participation and confidence as-much-as any claims of voter suppression.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — June 26, 2013 @ 8:45 am - June 26, 2013

  18. Why do you want people ineligible to vote voting? Why do you hate democracy? Why do you want to encourage criminal activity.

    Because all of these things help get Democrats elected, duh.

    Comment by V the K — June 26, 2013 @ 8:57 am - June 26, 2013

  19. At this point what difference does it make? Thanks to the moron Republicans in Congress who voted with the Democrats on that 24+ lb piece of Amnesty Crap bill, we are about to get 11 million undocumented Democrats voting in our next election. Sigh!

    Comment by runningrn — June 26, 2013 @ 10:13 am - June 26, 2013

  20. ” Why do you want people ineligible to vote voting?”

    If a problem becomes rampant I could get behind common sense laws that might infringe on law abiding citizens’ constitutional rights but I’m not sure vote fraud meets that test.

    Mostly I am surprised that so many here are willing to beg government employees for the privilege of voting. But I guess principles don’t really matter to some.

    Comment by mike — June 26, 2013 @ 10:26 am - June 26, 2013

  21. I am unable to understand why requiring someone to present identification prior to voting is “voter suppression”. I live in a state (FL) where voter ID is required and anyone of 10 different forms of photo IDs will be accepted. And still in 2012 we had precincts in heavily Democratic districts with more than 100% turnout. littlemike’s argument than at any time the gubmint can withdraw your ID and then you’d be unable to vote is a straw man argument at best. PLEASE explain how requiring an ID (esp photo ID) is voter suppression!

    Comment by Mary — June 26, 2013 @ 10:41 am - June 26, 2013

  22. Mary
    I never said it is voter suppression. I merely expressed my surprise how quickly many “conservatives” are willing to suffer government control over their rights.

    Comment by mike — June 26, 2013 @ 11:25 am - June 26, 2013

  23. For the record, I introduced the term ‘suppression’ in the thread, but did so as an off-the-cuff example of how discrimination could be considered a type of fraud:

    Voter discrimination implies, to me, a more specific type of fraud such as race-based vote suppression. Voter fraud is, to me, a more general term that could include a number of practices.

    It wasn’t my intent to sidetrack the discussion re. how suppression may be defined.

    Comment by Ignatius — June 26, 2013 @ 12:15 pm - June 26, 2013

  24. State ID is a different, more traditional and less threatening matter than federal ID.

    And many voter ID laws do not even require a State-issued ID, nor a photo ID. With the intent only of verifying that the name and address of the person who showed up to vote is the name and address of the person registered to vote, such laws may accept a utility bill, bank statement, paycheck receipt (with address), etc.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 26, 2013 @ 2:10 pm - June 26, 2013

  25. So, little letter mike, how do YOU get on board an airplane nowadays?

    Checkmate.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — June 26, 2013 @ 3:39 pm - June 26, 2013

  26. Peter, please re-read my comment # 20

    ILC – That’s fine. Its just revealing that “conservatives” are pushing to make voting a privileged granted by he government.

    Clearly there are few conservatives/libertarians/utopianits, instead you are partisans. Which is fine, but stop hiding behind your phoney ideology and just say it.

    Comment by mike — June 26, 2013 @ 10:13 pm - June 26, 2013

  27. Its just revealing that “conservatives” are pushing to make voting a privileged granted by he government.

    No more so than it has ever been throughout history, mike. Your point is silly, because nothing historically-new is being advocated here.

    Government, of necessity, administers the elections for government officers. The constitution (State or federal) states the times, qualifications, rules, rights and requirements for such elections, which government then carries out. ‘Twas ever thus. The right to vote can’t possibly be one of the natural rights (pre-existing government), for the simple reason that in a state of nature – where government doesn’t exist – voting for government officers is, by definition, insane.

    Voting is a method for choosing government officers. It is right to the extent, and only to the extent, that the constitution defines you as part of the qualifying group and commands government to administer the voting right equally (as well it should) within the group. Tell me about one moment in history when it hasn’t been so.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 26, 2013 @ 11:25 pm - June 26, 2013

  28. Clearly there are few conservatives/libertarians/utopianits, instead you are partisans. Which is fine, but stop hiding behind your phoney ideology and just say it.

    Comment by mike — June 26, 2013 @ 10:13 pm – June 26, 2013

    Projection.

    And the “one true Scotsman” fallacy.

    Spoken by a blind and desperate partisan bigot who has been called out on how his Obama and his Obama Party push and endorse and support voter fraud — because they do not believe in peoples’ right to fair and free elections.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 26, 2013 @ 11:31 pm - June 26, 2013

  29. “Government, of necessity, administers…..”

    Agree with you. And the same holds true of taxation, eminent domain, gun control, environmental regulations, health care and a whole host of other issues.

    As you aptly said out of necessity, the Government must “administer.” I am glad to see you growing intellectually to accept that indeed in a society a government must regulate the freedom of individuals out of “necessity.”

    In voter ID laws, I am not sure the problem meets the standard of “necessity.” And as someone who considers himself a moderate learning conservative, I think that its important the government only regulate when necessary. I am concerned about the Government creating a new regulatory barrier to voting and in my opinion, non-partisan conservatives, should not be cheer-leading this effort.

    Comment by mike — June 27, 2013 @ 12:59 am - June 27, 2013

  30. I am glad to see you growing intellectually to accept that indeed in a society a government must regulate the freedom of individuals out of “necessity.”

    mike – You really don’t know much about me, do you?

    Neither do you think clearly about the relationship between natural rights, government, government-created rights/privileges, and freedom. I’ve held the same, consistent and integrated position on those questions for years – which, apparently, you have never bothered to ask me about, and would not much listen to, if I explained.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 27, 2013 @ 1:10 am - June 27, 2013

  31. The funny part, ILC, is that the fascist mike reveals his duplicitous and hateful nature in those phrases.

    Voter fraud advances the cause of mike’s fascism, so of course he wants no barriers there.

    Private property, Second Amendment rights, and free markets all threaten the fascist mike’s power, so of course he wishes to regulate and limit those freedoms.

    Notice how the fascist ran away from my clear evidence of voter fraud. Contrast this with the fascist’s statements that the Tea Party deserved to be punished and harassed by the Obama IRS for merely daring to criticize Obama, regardless of whether or not they were committing a crime.

    Of course, the fascist won’t explain his inconsistency. It would make his hypocritical list for power and unwillingness to follow “regulations” himself too obvious.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 27, 2013 @ 7:47 am - June 27, 2013

  32. as someone who considers himself a moderate learning conservative…

    yet, he is a stalwart supporter of the most radical and corrupt left-wing administration in history, supports massive regulations of guns and private property, supports the welfare state and the expansion thereof, and attacks anyone who criticizes those positions.

    Lying or delusional? Which do you think it is?

    Comment by V the K — June 27, 2013 @ 12:47 pm - June 27, 2013

  33. Lying or delusional? Which do you think it is?

    Comment by V the K — June 27, 2013 @ 12:47 pm

    Hmmmm, this one’s a toughie.

    My answer is………..both.

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 27, 2013 @ 1:13 pm - June 27, 2013

  34. Actually, there’s some new data out that explains why Obama supporter mike is such a staunch believer in the necessity of regulating, tracking, and punishing conservatives and Tea Partiers.

    He considers them a greater threat than al-Qaeda.

    A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 51% of Likely U.S. Voters consider radical Muslims to be the bigger threat to the United States today. Thirteen percent (13%) view the Tea Party that way, and another 13% consider other political and religious extremists to be the larger danger. Six percent (6%) point to local militia groups. Two percent (2%) see the Occupy Wall Street movement as the bigger terrorist threat. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

    However, among those who approve of the president’s job performance, just 29% see radical Muslims as the bigger threat. Twenty-six percent (26%) say it’s the Tea Party that concerns them most. Among those who Strongly Approve of the president, more fear the Tea Party than radical Muslims.

    Read that again. Obama and his supporters think the Tea Party is more dangerous than al-Qaeda.

    All of a sudden it makes perfect sense why the government bureaucracy, which is overwhelmingly Obama supporters, is treating Tea Partiers and political dissenters worse than it did (and does) al-Qaeda terrorists.

    The Tsarnevs were not tracked because Obama and his supporters do not consider radical Muslims as much of a danger as they do the Tea Party.

    The media set out to smear the Tea Party for the Boston bombings because they believe the Tea Party is more dangerous than Islamist terrorists.

    This is our reality. Our own government, the entire Obama Party, the media, and the overwhelming majority of Obama supporters consider us enemies of the state.

    We are living under fascists. Sick, deluded concern troll mike wants our rights and liberties restricted. Sick, deluded concern-troll mike wants Obama supporters like himself to be able to run roughshod over our laws and deprive us of our right to vote because he thinks we are terrorists.

    These are facts, mike. Answer now. Why do Obama supporters like you and Barack Obama himself consider the Tea Party a greater terrorist threat to this country than al-Qaeda?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 27, 2013 @ 2:00 pm - June 27, 2013

  35. The funny thing, NDT, is that unlike the Tea Party, al-Qaeda would actually kill mike for the crime of simply being gay.

    I wonder how mikey would react if I told him that I was more welcome at a Tea Party rally as a gay conservative, than I am at my local gay bar as a gay conservative?

    Hypocrisy, thy name is liberalism.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — June 27, 2013 @ 3:58 pm - June 27, 2013

  36. President Mugabe praises Kenya’s national voter ID card program.

    Yup.

    Comment by V the K — June 27, 2013 @ 8:58 pm - June 27, 2013

  37. “Lying or delusional? Which do you think it is?”

    I think I just don’t see things through the prism of ideology like you do.
    To highlight from the examples you provided:;

    Guns – Obama did not try to make it illegal to buy guns, no matter how you try to spin it
    Welfare State:
    – Health Care – In the 90’s Single Payer Health care it was considered a “conservative big idea” and in my opinion its a necessity for the state to ensure health care to folks and its modeled after the a conservative health care plan
    – Entitlements – Obama has proposed and enacted more entitlement cuts then the last two republican presidents – especially considering how Medicare Part D expanded them
    Corrupt:
    Examples please? – As we learned today that indeed the IRS “scandal” is really no scandal at all, Benghazi is clearly a political witch hunt, and I actually support some of which the NSA is doing.

    I see as Obama as a pragmatist who has compromised a lot with republicans and has done some nice work.

    Comment by mike — June 27, 2013 @ 9:20 pm - June 27, 2013

  38. I see as Obama as a pragmatist who has compromised a lot with republicans and has done some nice work.

    Comment by mike — June 27, 2013 @ 9:20 pm – June 27, 2013

    I don’t actually have anything to contribute here. I just thought mike’s statement was so appallingly disingenuous, it borders on parody.

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — June 28, 2013 @ 6:42 am - June 28, 2013

  39. it borders on parody.

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — June 28, 2013 @ 6:42 am

    Not quite.

    It vaulted so far past parody that it now resides in the misty regions of an area which we call…..The Twilight Zone.

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 28, 2013 @ 9:33 am - June 28, 2013

  40. Exactly, Jman and MSM.

    When one looks at mike’s statements, their falsehoods – such as his insistence that Obama never supported gun bans and that the IRS never targeted conservatives are so beyond reality that one can only laugh.

    This really shows the desperation and malice of people like mike. Even the media admits Obama wants to ban the sale of guns. The Treasury Department’s own Inspector General states flatly that ALL Tea Party and conservative groups were targeted. But mike and his fellow Obama supporters are blinded to this by their ideology and hatred for conservatives.

    Concern-troll mike’s unwillingness to acknowledge facts presented to him or provide his own proves conclusively that he is driven solely by ideology, that he views everything through the prism of his ideology, and that he is not a rational person.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 28, 2013 @ 1:28 pm - June 28, 2013

  41. NOT
    Thanks for posting links that clearly highlight that Obama is not here to take guns away. From your link:
     “there’s no legislation to eliminate all guns; there’s no legislation being proposed to subvert the Second Amendment”

    Much appreciated

    Mia the facts are there for you to see. In my opinion if the right wing hate machine would not attack him so much the wacky liberals would be attacking Obama all the time.

    Comment by mike — June 28, 2013 @ 6:25 pm - June 28, 2013

  42. Thanks for posting links that clearly highlight that Obama is not here to take guns away. From your link:
    ”there’s no legislation to eliminate all guns; there’s no legislation being proposed to subvert the Second Amendment”

    Correction, mike.

    Thank YOU for demonstrating how your ideology blinds you.

    Obama emphasized his support for banning semi-automatic rifles modeled after military weapons as part of an updated version of an earlier weapons ban that expired in 2004.

    So yes, Obama IS banning guns. Obama is CLEARLY attempting to subvert the Second Amendment.

    You simply refuse to accept facts. Indeed, on this very blog, you have screamed and ranted about how Obama was right and Mitt Romney was a murderer, despite all evidence to the contrary.

    So your final statement is delusional, mike. You simply will repeat every lie Obama tells you. You haven’t any rational or intelligent thought; you deny any facts that contradict the lies Obama tells, and you repeat Obama’s lies as if they were fact.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 28, 2013 @ 6:59 pm - June 28, 2013

  43. LOL. These days, I think the voting rights act should be expanded to each and every state. With all the tricks conservatives are engaging in to stop *stop* people from voting, it just makes sense to go after some of these laws.

    Comment by Kevin — July 7, 2013 @ 10:41 pm - July 7, 2013

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.