Democrats, Still the Party of Voter Suppression

Democrats and the rest of the left have a somewhat bifurcated approach to the vote. During their Jim Crow regime in the South, Democrats specialized in retail vote suppression. When a potential black voter attempted to register that brave individual was met with literacy tests, poll taxes and other extra–constitutional roadblocks placed by a Democrat government between a minority and the voting booth.

Gary McCoy, Shiloh, IL

And if that wasn’t enough for the black man to take the hint, there was always outright violence as a fallback position.

Today Democrats have donated their voter suppression identity to an unwilling Republican party. They claim the GOP’s tentative, Tinder–like approach to matching names with faces is “vote suppression” and racism.

When Democrats were the suppressors they applied their genuine vote reduction efforts only to the subset of the population that was non–white. Accommodating Democrats often let White folks vote from the cemetery.

Republicans are much more even–handed. Their goal is to apply perfectly reasonable Voter ID efforts to anyone who wants to vote, whether he’s white enough to join the Klan or dark enough to be fleeing the Klan.

Matching a photo to the individual attempting to vote is for the left tantamount to giving the Gestapo control of America’s polling places. Recently defeated Maryland gubernatorial candidate and former NAACP Director Benjamin Chavis has screamed that Republicans were trying to “lynch democracy” by instructing voters to show ID.

The concern these leftists show for poor ignorant voters who can’t make their way to the DMV for a free ID, are too poorly educated to understand election rules and probably shop at Walmart is particularly touching when one remembers that’s also the left’s description of Trump voters.

But making voting free and universal, like STDs at Burning Man, is only half of the left’s approach. Elections are great. The Voice of the People and all that. As long as the outcome of the election meets with the left’s approval.

If it doesn’t, then that’s where the other half of the left’s modern approach to democracy appears.

Last June the addled electorate in Washington, DC (Hillary 91 percent; Trump 4 percent) approved Initiative 77 by a margin of 56 to 44 percent. The initiative was a typical redistribution scheme that took money from people who had it and gave it to people who wanted it, without costing voters a dime. Ballot box theft, in other words.

The text of the bill, according to The Washington Post, “phases out the ‘tipped wage’ that allows D.C. employers to pay workers as little as $3.89 an hour and count tips toward the standard minimum wage of $13.25 an hour. Under the initiative, employers are required to gradually increase hourly wages for tipped workers until they reach what will be the uniform minimum of $15 an hour by 2025.”

Passage of the initiative by uncontrolled voters didn’t sit well with the DC city council. So, in a unique twist, they’ve applied a literacy test to the initiative after the election, “…After it passed, some lawmakers insisted there wasn’t a clear voter mandate because of record-low turnout in the June 19 primary and confusing language on the ballot.”

Now the council is going to nullify the result. Seven of the 13 members of the city council have introduced a bill that would overturn Initiative 77 when the bill is voted on this fall. The fact the initiative passed in every one of their districts didn’t deter the Suppression Seven for an instant.

Council member Jack Evans, who’s been on the public teat for 30 years, and whose level of arrogance rivals that Creating the News Network’s Jim Acosta claims he’s carrying out the will of the people, if they were smart enough to know what they thought. “I represent the people; I was elected,” Evans pontificated, overlooking the fact Initiative 77 passed in his district.

Council member Trayon White Sr., who President Trump agrees makes Don Lemon look like a Nobel Laureate, claims the “vote is irrelevant.”

And don’t think this is the first time the council has nullified the will of the people. Since the 80s the politicians have overturned initiatives four times. The most egregious being a 2001 rejection of term limits and an earlier disposal of limits on local campaign contributions.

‘Woke’ Washingtonians who are talking about “flat–out voter suppression” and “openly ignoring votes” haven’t quite made the connection that the only elected officials and bureaucrats that are actively working to nullify or overturn elections are their own beloved leftists.

Trump is still Hitler. Even though Initiative 77 voters and the president have much in common. Both are fighting entrenched politicians, lobbyists, contributors and bureaucrats whose power is threatened by outsiders like grassroots initiative supporters and former reality TV stars.

Advertisements

Tom Coburn Will Be Missed By Conservatives

This is Sen. Tom Coburn’s last year in the Senate. It would have been his last term anyway, because he’s an honorable man and adheres to his term limits promise.

He first ran for the congressional seat held by a buddy of mine from college: Mike Synar. I would not have supported Coburn because at that time I was a deluded Democrat. Fortunately I changed and he didn’t.

Complete details are in my latest Newsmax Insider column, link below.

Remember you don’t have to fall in love with the column to post a link on your Facebook page, like it or tweet about it. I can use the readers and Newsmax doesn’t make it easy to find me.

(Sometimes I’m just happy if readers don’t want to enter Ebola quarantine after finishing it.)

Here’s the link: http://tinyurl.com/ows3wob

Marco Rubio and the Magic Beans

Immigration-CautionShortly after last year’s presidential defeat and at the beginning of the Great Republican Panic of 2013, I wrote here about what a bad idea morally and legally amnesty for illegal aliens is. Guess what? It still is.

In a sane universe “immigration reform” would be specifically designed to benefit the citizens of the nation passing the law, rather than be a law that only benefits non–citizens who came here illegally at the expense of the citizens.

But that hasn’t stopped Sen. Marco Rubio (R–FL) from eagerly joining the Gang of Ocho’s efforts to pass a “comprehensive” amnesty bill. After being trapped in a room with both Sen. Chuck Schumer (D–Publicity) and Sen. John McCain (R–Media Loves Me, Unless I Run for President), Rubio has evidently developed Stockholm Syndrome. He claims this amnesty bill does not have any amnesty provisions. Instead is has a “path to citizenship” where the length of time before amnesty kicks in somehow makes amnesty more tolerable for conservatives.

Yet I have a simple test for supporters of any immigration reform bill. If removing the portions that deal with granting citizenship to people who came to the US illegally causes Democrat support to vanish, then what you have is an amnesty bill and not a “reform” at all.

During her testimony before Congress in support of the bill, Sec. of Homeland Security Janet Incompetano said the 844–page bill has many benefits, including stricter accountability for employers and improving border security. Yet you can accomplish both of those goals without legalizing 12 million illegal aliens and doing so might just reduce the number of illegals here now.

Opponents of actually enforcing immigration law claim the government can’t deport 12 million people, but no one I know is advocating that. In fact this is one of the areas where I prefer a libertarian solution: the illegals got here on their own without government assistance and they can leave on their own, too.

In a true magic beans moment, Rubio is so proud of the 13–year “path to citizenship” — as if a slow motion surrender to illegality is an improvement over an immediate surrender. Maybe he thinks during this cooling off period Republican outreach teams can contact the newly legal and persuade them they are really naturally conservative and should be voting GOP.

But I’ve got news for Marco: it’s not going to happen. His 13–year path is going to be the civil unions of the immigration fight. As soon as Rubio’s bill is passed Democrats will begin complaining about second–class citizenship for brown people. As Neil Munro has written, the bill already has 400 “exemptions, exceptions, waivers, determinations and grants of discretion and even better will be administered by the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION!

We will be lucky if the 13–years lasts 13 months.

Democrats will get their immediate temporary permanent status for the illegals and the increased border security will never happen. The same goes for employer sanctions.

We heard the amnesty and border security shuffle when Reagan granted amnesty to 3 million (Gee, wasn’t he a Republican?). Amnesty was immediate and border security was absent, which is why we are preparing to legalize 12 million now.

The fines Rubio dreams of (much like the $1,500 fines the Commonwealth of Virginia was going to impose of indigent drunk drivers) will never be collected and the English proficiency test will be found to be culturally insensitive. Instead, illegals will get a waiver for the fine and if they can look at two photos and distinguish George Washington from Simon Bolivar their English is good to go, too.

You think I’m exaggerating? Ha! The Democrats in charge of the District of Columbia are preparing to introduce legislation that would require pharmacies, and possibly doctor’s offices, to provide translators — at business expense — for any customer or patient who does not speak English. That in a nutshell (apt phrasing, that) is the Democrat philosophy on immigration.

And by the way, I was being conservative when I said 12 million illegals would join us. According to NumbersUSA it will be more like 33 million, because “comprehensive reform” doesn’t manage to reform one of the major failings of current immigration policy called “family reunification.”

You probably think unifying families makes sense, because parents should be able to bring their children into the country. But you are wrong, that policy would be the reform. Current Democrat policy defines “family” as grandfathers, grandmothers, uncles, aunts, cousins, kissing–cousins, step–relatives and BFFs. So 33 million may be a conservative estimate.

Tea Party favorite Rubio is flacking for a bill that will only encourage more illegal immigration in the future, will not provide increased border security, will cost taxpayers billions, will depress wages for lower income workers, will burden the welfare system and — according to a report from Emily Schultheis in Politico — give Democrats 11 million so new voters, which is about the voting population of Ohio.

This leaves conservatives with a choice of opinions regarding Marco Rubio. One, he’s either too gullible to ever be allowed in the Oval Office or two, he’s a Democrat sleeper agent.

The Interview: Terry McAuliffe & the Boston Attack

Intimidating pressure cookers like this will be a thing of the past after Democrat Terry McAuliffe becomes Virginia governor.

Intimidating pressure cookers like this will be a thing of the past after Democrat Terry McAuliffe becomes Virginia governor.

(A source within the McAuliffe for Governor campaign leaked a copy of this transcript from an interview with a New York Times Sunday Magazine reporter. I felt I owed it to my readers to give them an advance look at this latest development in the Virginia governor’s race.)

NYT REPORTER: Governor McAuliffe, ha, that’s a bit premature, Mr. McAuliffe I could not help noticing at today’s media event that you were surrounded by all the genders of the rainbow, all ages and all races. And what’s more, everyone was wearing jogging clothes and actually smelled a little sweaty. Do you think the symbolism was important for your new legislative agenda?

Terry McAuliffe (D–Flim Flam) candidate for governor in Virginia: (Laughs) Well President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg had already booked the famous Boston marathoners, so we made do with local volunteers and a few of the better kept homeless. I will say we had a few problems convincing the older gentlemen to put on those tiny running shorts, but everyone was a good sport and happy to do a few laps around my indoor track to get in character for the event.

 

NYT: Tell us about this new legislation.

McAuliffe: It’s very simple. This is a problem and I have a government solution. After I’m sworn in, during my first hour as Virginia’s new governor I intend to introduce legislation to implement what I call common–sense pressure cooker control that all American’s can support.

 

NYT: How will it work?

McAuliffe: The centerpiece of the legislation is a one–per–month limit on pressure cooker sales to civilians. Purchasers will be entered into a statewide Culinary Registry where their name will be matched against previous purchases. This is a painless process for shoppers, which we will begin in upscale department stores. If their name comes up as having purchased a pressure cooker less than a month previously, they will be directed to a nice toaster oven or blender. In fact, if they are willing to give us their email address, the state will notify them when they are eligible to again purchase a pressure cooker.

 

NYT: The program will be limited to Bergdorf Goodman and Neiman Marcus?

McAuliffe: Certainly not. I’m aware that good value can be found at Target and something called ‘Big Lots.’ In fact, I intend to close the so–called ‘second–hand loophole.’ We will regulate sales at flea markets and thrift stores. Just because you may ‘no hablo’ doesn’t mean you should not register your purchase. I’ll give the secretary of technology six months to come up with an ‘app’ that will allow Smartphone registration in smaller stores and at garage sales.

 

NYT: So the legislation is just a limit on the number of purchases?

McAuliffe: No, I should have said a comprehensive, common–sense approach. There will also be a limit on the size of pressure cookers. No one really needs one of those high–capacity pressure cookers. Herbert Hoover only promised a single chicken in every pot, not an entire flock. And at our house my cook, Consuela, has never had to use a high–capacity pressure cooker. And that includes the really big fund raising events Bill Clinton attended before he became a vegan.

My kitchen experts also tell me that with the shrinking size of the American family and the distaste professional women display toward cooking, pressure cookers of 3 or possibly 4-quart capacity will be sufficient.

In addition, we also have design guidelines for cookers sold in Virginia. We want manufacturers to cut down on the number of dials and vaguely threatening controls found on some pressure cookers. In my experience newlywed cooking is frightening enough without adding an ominous pressure device to the mix.

 

NYT: Will this legislation have any impact on the Virginia economy?

McAuliffe: Of course I don’t want to do anything that would harm job creation. That’s one of my most popular focus group tested talking points. We certainly don’t want an Obamacare situation here. So there will be a size limit exception for commercial establishments that may require a larger–capacity cooker for their clientele. Right now homeless shelters, soup kitchens, prisons and Old Country Buffett are exempt from both size and purchase limits.

 

NYT: But what about existing large capacity pressure cookers that are already owned?

McAuliffe: The size of the existing pressure cooker market is nothing like that of the gun market, thank goodness. Plus there is no National Cooker Association pressuring gutless legislators. I feel that as inexperienced newlyweds burn things in pressure cookers, divorce papers are filed and just the general wear and tear of moving occur, the large capacity pressure cooker inventory will be reduced to a manageable size.

 

NYT: What about the public health component of your program?

McAuliffe: That’s important, too. The director of the state department of health will be encouraging pediatricians to ask their minor patients if they live in a house that contains pressure cooker and if so where is it stored. It’s important to know who has access to the cookware. We are also considering including a few questions on the amount of salt used in cooking and the presence of trans–fats.

 

NYT: Do you feel these common–sense regulations will remove the threat?

McAuliffe: This will certainly reduce the threat that originates in the kitchen, but at the same time, I don’t want to overlook the delivery system used in the Boston attack. I think the day of large, military–style backpacks is over. Black, camo or other assault backpacks are simply not necessary for civilian transport. When we were all still reeling from the tragedy, I was leaning toward banning backpacks entirely, but when my daughter pointed out the crucial role backpacks play in our education system, I relented.

 

NYT: What backpacks will be allowed in the future?

McAuliffe: We are currently writing the new regulations, but I think most backpacks that feature licensed characters or come from OshKosh B’Gosh, REI or Victoria’s Secret will be allowed, particularly if the backpack has those sexy little stringy straps. I also intend for the state patrol to conduct “backpack buy back” programs where outlawed backpack owners can turn in illegal backpacks in exchange for reusable grocery bags.

 

NYT: How long before Virginians can expect to see a difference?

McAuliffe: As the War on Poverty has proved, no problem that government attacks is really ever solved, but I think this is an important first step.