NAACP Tells Voter ID Protesters They Must Have ID to Join Protest

Remember this: having to have an ID to vote is raaaacist. But apparently, having to have an ID to join a protest about voter ID is… not? That is what the NAACP decided this month in Raleigh, North Carolina.

Blogger Sister Toldjah has the story of the “Moral March” that the NAACP is organizing in Raleigh intended to denounce all sort of racist things in the US today, one of which is voter ID–something leftists claim is “suppression” of the vote.

But as news got out about the march plans, an info sheet from the NCAAP came to light telling marchers what they should and shouldn’t do to participate in the event. One of the “Dos” was that marchers had to have a valid ID to be allowed to board the buses to get to the march.

So, a valid ID is a must so that protesters can protest voter ID laws?

Doesn’t that seem just a bit… deliciously stupid?

Twitchy has some great Tweets mocking the NCAAP for its contradictory lack of logic.

Watch This Guy Brilliantly Satirize Our Useless, Nanny State Governments
California has a water problem - Democrats are hoarding!
  • Sky__Captain

    The irony is strong in this story.

    Also strong is the stupidity of the organizers not to see a very large double standard.

  • Ken in Camarillo

    You can’t make this stuff up.

  • Ken in Camarillo

    You can’t make this stuff up.

  • Brucehenry

    Of course this might just be advice. Many of the Moral Monday protesters have been arrested. If you get arrested it’s handy to have your ID on you.

    Nowhere does it say that anyone from the march will be checking IDs or that you will not be allowed to participate without one.

    • alanstorm

      Nor does it say that the purpose is in anticipation of arrest. Could be, but it’s not clear.

      It’s still funny.

    • jim_m

      It demonstrates a tremendous lack of self awareness and total lack of understanding of context. It doesn’t surprise me that you would defend such tone deaf idiocy.

      I suppose that you believe that it is right that presenting an ID to vote is racist, but having to present an ID to enter the DOJ is perfectly legitimate. After all, we need to make sure who you are before we allow you your constitutional right to redress of grievances.

      • Brucehenry

        Only an inveterate ideologue would characterize the objection to so-called “Voter ID” laws as “presenting an ID to vote is racist.”

        The objection is that many, or at least some, poor, black, and elderly voters — most of whom tend to vote Democrat — will find it difficult to obtain the requisite ID and will be denied the right to vote as a result. A right they have always exercised in the past. And that the law is designed to suppress the vote of one party by addressing a “problem” that is virtually nonexistent. Just ask the Bush DOJ which couldn’t find individual “voter fraud” being committed on any significant scale when it tried.

        EDITED TO ADD LINKS:
        http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
        http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/24/voter-id-laws-target-rarely-occurring-voter-fraud/
        http://www.loyno.edu/jsri/real-fraud-%E2%80%9Cvoter-fraud%E2%80%9D

        And in NC, the “Voter ID” law also restricts early voting, which also reduces the number of Democratic votes, while it eases restrictions on absentee ballots, which tends to increase GOP totals.

        Conservatives have a weird sense of humor and a faulty irony detector if they find this ironic. Or funny. It’s apples and oranges, geniuses.

        • jim_m

          YOu claim that poor black people cannot get an ID is partisan bullshit. Laws across the country have passed the scrutiny of the Supreme Court and survived. Lawmakers know better and put provisions for people to get free state ID’s.

          The purpose of voter ID laws and restricting early voting is to reduce fraud. To the extent that it is reducing the dem vote is simply proof that the reducing of fraud is actually working.

          • Brucehenry

            I’m not necessarily making the claim, sport. I’m telling you what the claim is. And what it isn’t.

            So called “voter fraud” is practically non-existent, as the Bush DOJ demonstrated with their 5 year effort to find a “problem” so that the GOP could address it with a “solution.” There’s still no problem, but the solution is being implemented anyway.

            (See the links I inserted in my edit above.)

            That’s because the proponents of the so-called “Voter ID” laws are addressing another problem entirely — the problem of Democrats winning elections.

          • jim_m

            No. Voter fraud is not nonexistent. How do you explain it when an election results in more votes cast than eligible voters? Most of us call it fraud. You just call it what’s necessary to ensure a dem victory.

            There are countless counties where there are more registered voters than people eligible to vote. There are many examples of ballots being cast for dead people and of ineligible prisoners voting. These are all instances of fraud.

            The problem is that fraud is very difficult to prosecute, hence your left wing response that if you cannot get a conviction then nothing wrong ever happened. Fascist lie that is.

            The problem is that dems rely upon fraud to deliver elections. Just ask Gov Christine Gregoire of Washington. It is the ONLY reason she was ever elected. It is also the reason that Al Franken got into the Senate.

            So next time you want to claim that voter fraud doesn’t ever happen consider shutting you pie hole because you are only showing how partisan and grossly ignorant you are.

          • Brucehenry

            If your claims of more votes than voters is true, does that mean more bodies showed up at the polls than were listed on the rolls? No.

            If this happened at all (and I note you don’t include links) showing ID wouldn’t solve it. This would be a problem of fraud by the people COUNTING the votes, not by dozens, hundreds, or thousands of impostors physically showing up at the polls.

            Ditto with your “dead” and “prisoners” allegations.

            Which if you’d thought about your dumbass claims for 10 seconds you would already know.

            Can you imagine a conspiracy where hundreds or thousands of people are induced to commit fraud simultaneously and nobody talks? And there is no way to prosecute it? Because the Bush DOJ TRIED. For five long years. Snake eyes.

          • jim_m

            Again you resort to the if you cannot convict anyone then nothing happened. The fact is that I have posted links to establish every single one of my claims and you have posted nothing to try to contradict them.

            The fact is that voter fraud is real and it is effecting elections. The fact also is that you do not care because it disproportionately benefits people like you who have no moral compass (ie democrats).

            There are BALLOTS being cast, meaning that this is not about counting it is about real fraud. You know, that thing you say never ever happens.

          • Brucehenry

            Links? Post ‘em again, I must have missed ‘em. Did you add ‘em? I’ll refresh the page and see if I can find them.

          • jim_m

            I put the links in after I made the post.

            Don’t bother to respond. I already know your position. You don’t give a damn how badly democracy is subverted as long as it is benefiting your side. Your whole argument is that measures to reduce voter fraud disproportionately impact democrats and we agree. The only difference is that I admit that it eliminates the fraud dems commit and you don’t despite the abundant evidence that it is what is really going on.

          • Brucehenry

            I found them. And, what a surprise! They don’t demonstrate that the type of voter fraud we are discussing here — where impostors physically show up at the polls to vote — ever happens.

            As a matter of fact they don’t even demonstrate anything close to what you are claiming, even though you are trying to move the goalposts, you’re still 3rd and 22.

            The link to the West complaint was debunked within days, or did you forget? The FOX story about the Franken-Coleman race is a claim by a “conservative watchdog group” of sore losers. The one about ballots being cast by dead people is about 200 votes cast over two dozen elections I quote “investigators don’t consider the discrepancy fraudulent.” Do you even read these things? What a clown you are.

          • jim_m

            The here dumbass. It happens that people vote more than once: http://chippewa.com/article_79dae54c-f978-5b09-bb64-fb0f5a734bbd.html
            Jeez. You wouldn’t admit that voter fraud happens even if you saw it with your own eyes. You simply are too committed to lying to support the advance of your agenda at any cost.

          • jim_m

            ANd how many of the 97000 potential duplicate votes in Virginia were the margin of victory for Terry Mcaullife?

          • Brucehenry

            Can you read at all?

          • jim_m

            They pointed out that there were over 300,000 duplicate voters and that 97,000 had voted in recent elections.

            The point is that it is the opportunity for fraud.

            You are against taking measures against fraud because you think that it never happens

          • Brucehenry

            Nope. I think if fraud can be prosecuted it should be. Most voter fraud is done by the people counting the votes. Practically none is done by impostors.

            Just ask Katherine Harris about voter fraud and voter suppression.

          • jim_m

            So you do not believe that we should pass any laws but just try to prosecute what everyone admits is almost impossible to prosecute because of the guarantee of voter privacy.

          • Brucehenry

            To be honest I don’t have too much of a problem with the ID part even though it’s bogus. If it’ll make paranoiacs like yourself feel better and can be made to NOT be an undue burden on old folks I’d be OK with it, personally.

            It’s the early voting thing and the no-student-ID thing that bothers me, both of which are problems in my state’s law.

          • Vagabond661

            The biggest problem with voter ID for the Democrats is the dead cannot obtain them anymore.

          • Brucehenry

            You should read the WHOLE article, genius, then you wouldn’t look so stupid.

            Your link proves allegations were made. It proves nothing further. 14 years ago.

            And again it wouldn’t be solved by voter ID laws.

          • jim_m

            It proves that people are casting more than one ballot.

            It proves that we need more ballot security, the very thing that you are claiming is unnecessary.

            It proves that you will dismiss every single instance of fraud that you can.

            The left has stood against purging ineligible voters, against voter ID, against anything that will make it harder to commit fraud.

            You stand clearly in favor of continuing that tradition of fraud.

          • Brucehenry

            It proves that some people are CLAIMING that others are casting more than one ballot. Or were, in 2000.

            It proves that Wisconsin allegedly needed more ballot security at these polling places near Marquette U. In 2000.

            Again, can you read at all? Not just the parts you like, but like, WHOLE articles, with caveats, disclaimers, etc?

          • jim_m

            I will simply point out that you do not deny my claim that you stand against any measures to improve ballot security or to eliminate bogus registrations.

            You further do not deny my claim that you are against anti voter fraud measures because they disproportionately hurt dem candidates even though there is no evidence that they stop minorities from voting.

          • Brucehenry

            I don’t have to respond to every crazy claim you make, you demented lunatic.

        • Retired military

          Bruce
          That is a bogus argument and you know it.
          a. Many states have offered to provide free ID.
          b. If they are so poor than they are most likely on public assistance and need ID to apply for that.
          c. As for virtually nonexistent how about when more votes are cast than there are voters in the county?

          • Brucehenry

            See the links I inserted in my edit, above. One from FOX, btw.

          • Brucehenry

            Read the one from the Jesuit site all the way through, RM.

          • jim_m

            Why not respond to his points, you loser?

          • Brucehenry

            I thought maybe I’d get him to follow me from thread to thread and repeat the same questions for months, lol.

            Plus the link addresses most of them.

          • Retired military

            Bruce
            I give you more credit than I do Chico.

          • Brucehenry

            Just messin’ with Jim, RM.

        • alanstorm

          Are you aware that the “The Brennan Center for Justice”, who is a major source in the Fox story you quote, is a left-wing organization opposed to Voter ID laws? And surprise, surprise, they find no reason for them.

          Are you also aware that voter turnout increased in TX after voter id laws were passed?

          http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/13/voter-turnout-in-texas-nearly-doubles-under-new-id-law/

          http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/12/opinion/preston-texas-id-laws/

          Not doing to good at suppressing the vote, are they?

          I don’t care whether voting fraud is rampant or not – proving that you are eligible to vote is something everybody who wants their vote to count should support. As has been noted innumerable times, you have to have an ID to do most anything these days – I find it very difficult to believe that a significant number of voters do not already have at least one form of ID.

          “And in NC, the “Voter ID” law also restricts early voting, which also
          reduces the number of Democratic votes, while it eases restrictions on
          absentee ballots, which tends to increase GOP totals.” So? If this is an actual issue, then the Democrats need to stop voting early and file absentee ballots.

          “The objection(, which is always stated as fact but never tested,) is that many, or at least some, poor, black, and elderly voters — most of whom tend to vote Democrat — will find it difficult to obtain the requisite ID and will be denied the right to vote as a result.”

          FIFY.

          • Brucehenry

            Well I have to agree that the number of people who can’t obtain a valid ID is probably negligible. It’s also likely exponentially greater than the number of people who try to cast votes fraudulently.

            I voted early in NC in 2008, 2010, and 2012. Sunday afternoon. My wife, daughter, and I were practically the only white people in the lines, and the lines were long. Working people often can’t take time off on Tuesday to vote — I couldn’t — and I couldn’t even begin to tell you how to obtain an absentee ballot.

            The history of this country has been one of trying to EXPAND access to the vote, but I perfectly understand the GOP’s efforts to RESTRICT it. If more people vote, the GOP loses.

          • Jwb10001

            Interesting that you constantly demand links and proof but will insist that the GOP wants to RESTRICT the vote without any sort of evidence other than your own partisan beliefs.

          • Brucehenry

            Inventing a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist, with the result that Democratic voters don’t, umm, you know…. get to vote, is evidence enough for thinking people.

          • Jwb10001

            So you’re suggesting there is NO voter fraud? The people recently charged with that offense would be quiet surprised to hear that. And no I won’t provide links or proof that seems to no longer be required.

          • Retired military

            Actually Bruce it is my understanding that employers have to give employees an opportunity to vote. Of course early voting pretty much ensures that everyone is given an opportunity as long as they are valid voters. Of course valid is in the eye of the beholder.

          • jim_m

            It is the law in most states that you have to give people the opportunity to vote.

          • LiberalNightmare

            Around here, voting starts at 8am, and goes till 9pm. Id say the odds of a democrat actually having a job, and working overtime is pretty slim.

          • jim_m

            You have a point. How is it that the masses of leftist parasites cannot find the time to get out and vote when they are living off the dole?

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah, let the fry cook tell his manager at the Red Lobster that he can’t — WON’T — stay through the rush because he has to go vote. Let the salesman behind on his quota tell his boss he’s knocking off early. It just doesn’t work that way, dude. You know that.

          • jim_m

            Employers have to give you time to vote not necessarily the time you want. No one is going to get the busiest part of the day off and you know that your example is BS.

            Most polling places are open 10 hours or more. There is no excuse for anyone not having the chance to vote except for pure laziness.

          • Brucehenry

            Really? Because I routinely arrive at work by 7am or earlier (that’s why you often find me posting here at 5am or even earlier) and never know if I’ll be done by 2, 3, 530, or 8. I’d just love to tell my boss, a rabid Limbaugh listener, I wasn’t gonna get done what he expected of me because I was demanding my right to go vote for Democrats. No thanks.

            That’s why I loved early voting.

          • Retired military

            Bruce
            Most places will let them vote just simply due to the possibility of a law suit.
            also as I stated most states have early voting. Plenty of days to get to vote.

          • Brucehenry

            And most of the states, including mine, that are passing voter ID laws are also restricting early voting. NC went from 17 days, I believe, to 10. When you reduce the number of days available for early voting you reduce the number of votes cast — and those votes are predominantly for one party.

            The fact that a legislature dominated by the OTHER party enacted this measure should alert people to the fact that it is a voter SUPPRESSION measure, not a “voter confidence” measure.

          • Retired military

            The fact that a legislature dominated by the OTHER party enacted this measure should alert people to the fact that it is a voter SUPPRESSION measure, not a “voter confidence” measure.”

            So you are claiming that measures passed on a strict party line vote is to help one party and hurt the other?
            You mean like Obamacare?
            Also the reverse could be true. That a measure which one party is against is because it hurts that party not to cause w voter suppression but to reduce possible fraud which helps that party.

            Also Bruce if you are in line when the polls close you will get to vote. No matter what. So even if the polls are open one day than the chances are very great that you will get to vote. After all how many fry cooks are working in a state with only one day to vote and have to work all election day>?

          • jim_m

            The fact that the dems all voted against this should alert people to the fact that this is a vote fraud issue and not a racial issue.

            FIFY.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Hear hear!

          • jim_m

            What Bruce neglects is that voter ID is not just about fraud but it is about restoring confidence in the ballot box. But the left doesn’t want people to have confidence. The left wants people demoralized so they don’t vote, that way the fraud is all that more effective.

          • Brucehenry

            How does it increase confidence in the voting process to make it more difficult for the voters from one party to vote, dumbass?

            Again, impostor voting just plain doesn’t happen. Making it impossible for something to happen that already doesn’t is stupid. Or would be, if that was the intent of these laws.

          • jim_m

            By increasing the confidence that people voting actually are the people who have the right to vote. That should have been clear from everything I have said here.

            I have already posted links that show that imposter voting does indeed happen. Where do you think they got more ballots cast than registered voters?

            And now you ignore the links posted that show that voting in Texas has gone up after the ID law and not down. Who is having their votes so suppressed that voters at the polls are increasing?

            Once again we see that for Bruce the truth is not based in factual evidence. For Bruce his ideology tells him what is true and facts to the contrary can be ignored.

          • Jwb10001

            Bull Shit Bruce, voter fraud does indeed exist and to an even greater degree registration fraud exist. The latter enables the vote to be less than authentic and if you don’t believe that then you are just plain ignoring the facts. Again I won’t provide proof or links as this is no longer required per your own refusal to do so.

          • jim_m

            Bruce is pretending that it doesn’t exist because if it did exist it would shatter his belief that the left was an overwhelming majority. He would also have to face the truth of the endemic corruption of the left.

          • Vagabond661

            The most clear case of voters being disenfranchised is the military.

          • Hank_M

            “Again, impostor voting just plain doesn’t happen”

            Oh, I dunno. An old article by the NY TIMES from 1984 reports that “A Brooklyn grand jury investigating election fraud has found that eight primary elections in the borough between 1968 and 1982 were marked by repeated fraud, including multiple voting by teams of political workers with fake voter registration cards…..citing examples of one unidentified person voting at least 10 times in a 1970
            primary and then in subsequent elections leading groups of bogus voters who, in total, voted illegally as many as 500 times in a 1976 primary.”

            And let me also note that Al Franken won the so-called recount by 312 votes.

  • LiberalNightmare

    If you dont check ID, anyone could show up and protest.

  • Lawrence Westlake

    Leftism is a severe mental disorder, not an actual ideology, so this shouldn’t at all be surprising to anyone. A leftist believes nothing about which they advocate on behalf of others, it acts diametrically opposite of mandates it insist apply to other, disfavored groups, it insists on full compliance by others of items to which it angrily opposes for its own pet groups, and categorically it rejects for itself regulations for which it insists on full adherence by others.

  • GarandFan

    Just more hypocrisy. BTW, if you want to complain about voter ID laws and go to Washington to bend Eric Holder’s ear……be advised, you MUST show ID in order to get into the building.

  • Michael Lang

    Brucie is a imbecile. All those responses that signify nothing but nonsense.

    • Brucehenry

      What a cogent and cutting response. I am devastated.

      I can only reply that I am rubber and you, sir, are glue, so everything you say, you see, bounces off me and adheres to you.

      • jim_m

        It is at least as cogent as your attacks on the sources of material and your ignoring the substance of the complaints.

        • Brucehenry

          Yes I’ll keep that in mind next time I cite Media Matters and you dismiss it.

  • jim_m

    Here you go Bruce: Endgame for the obama admin is that anyone should be able to vote including foreign nationals

    In fact the DOJ is standing in the way of enforcing existing federal law that requires that only citizens are eligible to vote.

    To quote Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes, a political
    employee serving at the pleasure of the attorney general, regarding provisions in federal law that require removing ineligible voters from the rolls:

    We have no interest in enforcing this provision of the law. It has nothing to do with increasing turnout, and we are just not going to do it..

    But once again Bruce denies that this contributes to voter fraud becaus ehe knows (his ideology informs him so he knows) that voter fraiud never happens.

    But what he really knows is that making fraud easy gives the amoral left an advantage because he, and they, believe that nothing wrong ever happens unless you are convicted in a court of law. Anything else you might do is perfectly legal.

    • Brucehenry

      Only a partisan dumbass like yourself would post as evidence links he either hasn’t read all the way through, or from disgruntled ex-employees posting at the hyperpartisan “PJ Tatler,” a rightwing nonsense rag if there ever was one.

      From the more balanced Wichita Eagle article:

      “Melgren pressed Kobach at one point, on whether the commission has to automatically add anything to the federal form that a state legislature and governor might approve.

      Melgren gave the hypothetical example of Kansas passing a law denying the right to vote to people of Swedish descent and asked Kobach thether the EAC would have to add that to the federal form.

      ‘Yes, yeah, they would,’ Kobach responded.”

      So when a DOJ attorney argues against a measure that would allow arbitrary and capricious discrimination, in Jim’s fevered brain that’s a BAD thing. What a maroon.

      • jim_m

        Except that I read the judge’s questioning to bring out the perversity of the federal government’s position and their ignorance of the law. The DOJ attorney claims that they would comply with the unconstitutional request but not comply with the constitutional ones.

        You further ignore the comments that the DOJ is refusing to comply with the existing law regarding removing ineligible voters.

        Once again ruce, you demonstrate that you are willing to back a selective enforcement of the law as long is it advances the anti-democratic agenda of your side.

        There is absolutely no law breaking that you will not excuse and support as long as it benefits the left.

        • Brucehenry

          That’s one way to read it. It’s incorrect and demonstrates an inability to read English but it IS one way to read it.

          • jim_m

            And you still ignore the direct quote from the DOJ partisan flack stating flatly that they have no intention to enforce federal law requiring purging of ineligible voters to reduce voter fraud.

            I give you direct evidence that obama’s DOJ wants to keep the door open to fraud and you ignore it because it runs counter to your ideologically based truth that such fraud does not exist and that obama is a s pure as the driven snow.

          • Brucehenry

            Maybe that’s because J Christian Adams is a nut, a proven liar, and a disgruntled ex-employee.

          • jim_m

            He is a disgruntled ex-employee because Holder ran him out because Adams believed that the law should be enforced on people regardless of their skin color

            We all know that racists like you believe that blacks should be given a pass on complying with the law because you believe that blacks are genetically inferior and incapable of behaving in a non criminal fashion.

            Once again we see that Bruce attacks the messenger and refuses to discuss the content of the issues. He is morally bankrupt and will excuse any and all excesses of this administration.

          • Brucehenry

            It’s no wonder you can’t recognize a nut when you see one.

            This thread has devolved into nothing but name-calling and unfounded accusation, so I’m leaving again. But keep slinging your wild-eyed accusations around if you wish. I’ll keep checking the other threads, but I’m done with this one. Hope you take some aspirin to reduce your fever.

            Feel better, Jim.

          • jim_m

            Go ahead, laugh and ignore it.

            The Holder DOJ has been systematically refusing to prosecute voter fraud and intimidation by blacks. Apart form the New Black Panther case there has been Ike Brown and other cases where they turn a blind eye because they are the beneficiaries of law breaking,

            Once again you prove me right by ignoring and dismissing these facts because they demonstrate that you are a happy little fascist and you are enjoying watching basic rights being stripped from you enemies.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE