The Insanity Continues

The Daily Caller posted a story today about the latest protest of the National Anthem.

The article reports:

According to SFGate.com, the national anthem is a “racist song” and the NAACP wants to push state lawmakers to change it.

Alice Huffman, the president of the California chapter of the NAACP, said the song is “racist” and that it “doesn’t represent our community. It’s anti-black people.”

 The cites the song’s third verse, which is usually not sang, as evidence of its racist overtones. The third verse includes a line that says, “no refuge could save the hireling and slave from the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave.”

When the song was written in 1814, slavery was still legal in the United States.

Slavery is part of America’s history. It’s not a positive part, but it is a part. In 1814, slavery was legal.

Just as a point of information, according to a website called federalobserver:

…according to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, 12.5 million Africans were shipped to the New World. 10.7 million survived the dreaded Middle Passage, disembarking in North America, the Caribbean and South America.

And how many of these 10.7 million Africans were shipped directly to North America? Only about 388,000. That’s right: a tiny percentage.

Slavery is over in America. Unfortunately it is still alive and well in other parts of the world. Those protesting the National Anthem might do better to protest the places where slavery still exists.

Supporting Election Fraud

On October 21, Judicial Watch posted an article about a preemptive strike on North Carolina’s requirement for voter identification in the 2016 election.

The article obtained a copy of a letter from a lawyer for the State of North Carolina to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

The article reports:

…a speaker at a recent NAACP conference in North Carolina urged audience members to mislead the NAACP’s own members into believing they do not need to register to vote in advance, or that they do not need to vote at their assigned polling place. Why?  The letter alleges: To create confusion and animosity during the upcoming mid-term elections in North Carolina, and to use the evidence of that confusion in the ongoing litigation between Eric Holder’s Justice Department and North Carolina and to show that North Carolina’s election integrity laws are discriminatory. From the letter:

It is also our understanding that during the [NAACP conference], Rev. Barber urged those in attendance to take unregistered voters to vote during the Early Voting period and to engage in get-out-the vote activities that included transporting registered voters to vote in precincts in which they are not assigned to vote on Election Day, or words to that effect. The stated purpose for these activities, as I understand it, was to gather evidence for and thereby enhance plaintiffs prospects of success in the litigation involving [North Carolina’s Election Integrity Laws].

Why are liberal groups fighting so hard against laws that guarantee the integrity of the vote?

The article at Judicial Watch details past and present actions on behalf of voter integrity in North Carolina:

Judicial Watch has been actively involved in this sprawling North Carolina election litigation for the past two years. Judicial Watch has filed two amicus briefs in this case, one in 2013 and one in 2014, supporting North Carolina and election integrity. On both occasions, we were joined in our brief by our partner the Allied Educational Foundation and by local political activist Christina Merrill.  We also gave oral arguments and submitted an expert witness report to the trial court explaining that no one is harmed by these election integrity laws, but rather, these laws prevent fraud and ensure all Americans are confident that election results are fair and honest.

If true, the fact that the NAACP’s leaders appear willing to risk the confusion and disenfranchisement of their own members in order to deceive a Court about common sense election integrity laws speaks volumes about the intellectual bankruptcy of the left’s arguments.  The left’s weak arguments also explain why the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 7 to 2 vote, recently overruled the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ temporary injunction and held that North Carolina’s laws comply with federal law and should be used during the November 2014 election.  The litigation between North Carolina and the DOJ is expected to proceed further in 2015.

North Carolina’s voter identification law is supposed to be in effect for the 2016 presidential election. It will be interesting to see how much of a fight the political left is going to put up to prevent North Carolina’s voter identification law from taking effect. The law is obviously needed (see previously posted video of James O’Keefe being allowed to vote twenty different times in North Carolina). The question remains, “Why is the political left fighting to preserve voter fraud?”

Protecting North Carolina Voters

Tonight the Coastal Carolina Taxpayers Association held a public meeting in the Stanly Hall Ballroom in New Bern to discuss the voter law recently passed in North Carolina. The speakers were Susan Myric of Civitas, Meloni Wray, Director of Craven County Elections, and Gary Clemmons, Chairman of the Craven County Board of Elections.

H.B. 589, the Voter Information Verification Act (VIVA), aka the Voter Identification Bill, is the first comprehensive change to North Carolina election law in decades. H.B. 589 passed the North Carolina House of Representatives in April of 2013. In July the North Carolina Senate amended H.B. 589 and passed it. The bill then went back to the House of Representatives. The bill was ratified on July 26, and the Governor signed it on August 12. The ACLU, NAACP, and various other organizations promptly filed lawsuits against the bill, with Eric Holder later filing a suit against the State of North Carolina.

The lawsuits filed are objecting to the change in early voting–from 17 days to 10 days, the end of same day voter registration, and the end of out-of-precinct voting. There will be a hearing on September 25 in Charlotte regarding the change in the voting law.

Under the new law, voters must register to vote by October 10, 2014. This gives the Board of Elections the opportunity to verify the address of the voter. Under the new law, voters will be required to vote at their correct precinct based on their address as of 30 days prior to Election Day. In 2016, voters will be required to show an acceptable photo ID. In 2014 all voters will be asked if he or she has one of the acceptable ID’s for the purpose of voting. A list of acceptable photo ID will be provided for review at the polling location. Instructions will be given to voters without acceptable ID on how to obtain a no-fee photo ID from the NCDMV.

The request for photo ID when voting is not unreasonable. We live in a society where photo ID is required for many activities–purchasing cigarettes or liquor, to board an airplane, to cash a check, to receive government benefits, etc. It also makes sense to have voters register to vote in time for their addresses to be verified.

Hopefully, the Court will uphold this law, as it ensures that every vote counts by attempting to eliminate voter fraud.

Taking A Stand For Traditional Marriage

Same-sex marriage is not a civil rights issue–it is a cultural issue. I have no problem allowing civil unions for same-sex couples to insure they have the same rights as married couples, but as soon as you allow same-sex marriage, you create a problem of discrimination against those of us who believe what the Bible says. If same-sex marriage is legal, is it legal for a Bible-believing Pastor to refuse to marry a gay couple when the Bible tells him that what they are doing is a sin? Is it legal for a wedding photographer to refuse to photograph the wedding because he believes in the Bible, which says that what they are doing is a sin? Yesterday CBN News reported that a Christian photography studio was found guilty of discrimination by a New Mexico’s Court of Appeals because the studio refused to take pictures of a gay commitment ceremony . What about the First Amendment rights of the photography studio?

Yesterday the Quad-City Times reported that the Rev. Keith Ratliff Sr. of the Maple Street Missionary Baptist Church in Des Moines is resigning as branch president of the Iowa/Nebraska branch of the NAACP because of the national organization’s decision to endorse same-sex marriage.

The article reports:

Earlier this year, the national board of directors of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People voted to support marriage equality.

During a Statehouse rally in March 2011, Ratliff said his support for traditional marriage was biblically based, adding, “This isn’t a private interpretation, a Burger King religion, and by that I mean a ‘have it your way’ religion.”

Same-sex marriage is not a civil rights issue–it is a cultural issue. If the Democrats who support same-sex marriage can convince the rest of us that it is a civil rights issue, they will win the argument. If those of us who support civil unions to give equal rights to gay couples but stop short of endorsing same-sex marriage will speak out and protect First Amendment rights, everyone’s rights will be protected.

Enhanced by Zemanta