Great news: UN Human Rights Council to investigate American voter-ID laws

posted at 10:25 am on March 15, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Stop me if you’ve heard this joke before.  A Saudi, a Cuban, and an American political group walks into a room — and the American political group asks them to tell the US to be more fair about its voting practices.  Haven’t heard this one?  You may get a chance to see it in action if you go to Geneva and watch the UN Human Rights Council and the NAACP at work:


The United Nations Human Rights Council is investigating the issue of American election laws at its gathering on minority rights in Geneva, Switzerland.. This, despite the fact that some members of the council have only in the past several years allowed women to vote, and one member, Saudi Arabia, still bars women from the voting booth completely.

Officials from the NAACP are presenting their case against U.S. voter ID laws, arguing to the international diplomats that the requirements disenfranchise voters and suppress the minority vote.

Eight states have passed voter ID laws in the past year, voter ID proposals are pending in 32 states and the Obama administration has recently moved to block South Carolina and Texas from enacting their voter ID measures.

“This really is a tactic that undercuts the growth of your democracy,” said Hillary Shelton, the NAACP’s senior vice president for advocacy, about voter photo ID requirements.

Hey, who would know more about the “growth of democracy” than the member states of the UNHRC?  For instance, Saudi Arabia doesn’t allow women to vote at all.  Cuba and China are one-party dictatorships.  The UNHRC is a monument to the fatuity of moral relativism applied to global democracy; half of the member states should be in the dock of a human-rights tribunal rather than running it.

And this is the NAACP’s model of justice? Appealing to the democratic instincts of China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia?  That’s the biggest joke.  Or perhaps not, as John Hinderaker points out, citing one of the NAACP’s claims:

“The civil rights group says one, Kemba Smith Pradia, was convicted of a drug-related offense and is concerned that if she moves back to Virginia from the Midwest, state law will block her voting because of her record, even though she was granted clemency by President Bill Clinton.”

So this is the best the NAACP can do: Kemba Smith Pradia lives in the Midwest and has a criminal conviction on her record. Can she vote? Yes, because the state where she lives either doesn’t bar felons from voting, or doesn’t have a voter ID law, so she can vote fraudulently. But she worries that if she should move to Virginia, she will have to present identification. In that event, if Virginia law doesn’t allow felons to vote, she won’t be able to get away with breaking the law! Is that a human rights violation, or what?

Bear in mind that a few of the countries to whom the NAACP is appealing only have allowed women to vote at all in the past few years, and Saudi Arabia doesn’t allow it even now (or women to drive, or to walk by themselves, and so on). Many more of them don’t allow for meaningful political opposition from women or anyone else.

If the NAACP wants to argue against voter ID requirements, they should make their case to American voters, not an international panel of thugs and kleptocrats.  We are a self-governing nation, not a fiefdom of the UN — and thank the Lord for that.  The NAACP wants to make its arguments to some of the most oppressive states in the world because (a) the NAACP knows it has a losing case here in the US, and (b) they just want to embarrass Americans into knuckling under to their demands, mainly because their screeches of “raaaaaaaacism” have lost all their impact here at home.  They believe that international scorn from dictators like the Castro brothers will enhance their efforts to oppose voter ID laws, which only proves that the NAACP has a serious disconnect from reality.

Michael Ramirez points out the absurdity in the opposition to laws that require proof of identity before casting votes:

I’ll make the NAACP a deal: when the federal government stops requiring me to produce government-issued identification to purchase firearms — a right explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution — then I’ll stop supporting state requirements to produce government-issued identification at the polling place.

Also, be sure to check out Ramirez’ terrific collection of his works: Everyone Has the Right to My Opinion, which covers the entire breadth of Ramirez’ career, and it gives fascinating look at political history.  Read my review here, and watch my interviews with Ramirez here and here.  And don’t forget to check out the entire Investors.com site, which has now incorporated all of the former IBD Editorials, while individual investors still exist.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Won’t those “witnesses” have a hard time traveling to Geneva without a passport?

If it’s inconvenient to get a valid ID in order to vote, having to produce a VALID PICTURE ID as well as a BIRTH CERTIFICATE to get a passport must really be over the top. Couple that with the fact that you have to go to a ….shudder….. Post Office in order to get an application. Post Offices aren’t known for “user friendly” hours of operation.

GarandFan on March 15, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Don’t forget, too, that the United Nations Human Rights Commission kicked the United States off in 2001 and then voted to add Sierra Leone, Uganda, Sudan, and Togo to the panel and made Libya the chair in 2002.

Not exactly a paragon of credibility.

Resist We Much on March 15, 2012 at 11:15 AM

This is a gross misunderstanding of the Constitution and our rights. We have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms (not firearms specifically, but all arms) – in other words, we have the right to self-defense. It does not say that we have the right to purchase firearms without identification.

Dante on March 15, 2012 at 10:55 AM

You are GROSSLY out of line with your last statement:

Here is WORD FOR WORD WHAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT SAYS:

As passed by the Congress:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[8]
The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and resides in the National Archives.

And NOW the definition of INFRINGED :
infringement – definition of infringement by the Free Online …
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infringementin·fringe·ment ( n-fr nj m nt). n. 1. A violation, as of a law, regulation, or agreement; a breach. 2. An encroachment, as of a right or privilege.
NOW FOR THE USSC INTERPRETATION in Dist Of Columbia v Heller
Asking for ID IS an encroachment SINCE it is a natural right UNDER the US Constitution, strictly speaking.

None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.[136][137]
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.[136][137]

You may also view McDonald V The City Of Chicago ~ AT NO TIME DID they say that ID is required, BUT only that the mentally unstable, prior criminal types, etc. not have access to ANY weapons.

Check your facts next time before making a blanket statement that apparently is from Fantasyland.

DevilsPrinciple on March 15, 2012 at 11:16 AM

This is a gross misunderstanding of the Constitution and our rights. We have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms (not firearms specifically, but all arms) – in other words, we have the right to self-defense. It does not say that we have the right to purchase firearms without identification.

Dante on March 15, 2012 at 10:55 AM

In that case, if Fluke feels she has the right to birth control, then she can make her own pills in her kitchen.

jeffn21 on March 15, 2012 at 11:17 AM

And if the UN Human Rights Commission says that the state of Virginia has been a bad boy by not letting a bad girl vote there, what will they do about it? Send blue-helmet peace-keepers to Virginia? That did a lot of good in Serbia and Rwanda, didn’t it?

Steve Z on March 15, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Here in California they require, by Law, a valid State-issued photo identification, as well as a signature on a government form at point of purchase, in order to buy… just one pack of over-the-counter cold remedy tablets.

No fooling.

SD Tom on March 15, 2012 at 11:18 AM

So why isn’t the NAACP railing against onerous CCW laws? The high fees are almost certainly disenfranchising minorities who are unable to defend themselves against crime in their neighborhood.

John Deaux on March 15, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Hi fees ?…lol..where is this? I paid $ 38.00 for mine for five years or $7.40 a year. And that’s my .02. Literally.

DevilsPrinciple on March 15, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Check your facts next time before making a blanket statement that apparently is from Fantasyland.

DevilsPrinciple on March 15, 2012 at 11:16 AM

You are the one who needs his facts checked. The word purchase does not appear in the Second Amendment, nor does the word firearm. Having to provide identification to purchase a firearm is not infringing upon one’s right to keep and bear arms. Again, arms is a large group of which firearms is a subset, and it is only in some instances one is required to provide identification in purchasing a firearm.

Get your facts straight before you think you can lecture someone.

Dante on March 15, 2012 at 11:20 AM

I wish that the UN report would reflect the participating countries’ actual practices. Something along the lines of “The Saudi delegate stated that the law requiring people to show identification in order to vote should be abolished, because he believes that voting in elections should not be allowed in the first place.”

Keep in mind, the Saudi government isn’t even that enthusiastic about men voting, They don’t have an elected parliament, for example.

J.S.K. on March 15, 2012 at 11:23 AM

As for those who argue that voting isn’t a fundamental right, try imagining this country without it. Where an army of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats controls ever section of our lives and . . .

Wait. Never mind.

JDF123 on March 15, 2012 at 11:24 AM

LOL … love Ramirez’s volt.

Lost in Jersey on March 15, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Also his $15 trillion check to China signed by Obama.

Steve Z on March 15, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Yes. There is no right to vote. It doesn’t exist.

Dante on March 15, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Resist We Much gave a good reply with regard to the law on this, but the more fundamental point is that regardless of what the law says, and even if the law said it was a right, voting would still not be a right.

Voting and democracy are tools we put in place within the Republic to help people defend the things that really are our rights, like the right to self-defense and speech and religious expression and our right to be secure in our property. If a tyranny would defend those rights and a democracy would not, then the tyranny would be the better form of government.

Outside of a strongly enforced rule of law that protects our rights, democracy does absolutely nothing to defend our rights in and of itself. Democracy without anti-democratic laws to keep the democracy in check is just mob rule. We would be more free and our rights would be better protected under a broadly corrupt but philosophically indifferent despotism.

It is the rule of law that matters. It is the Constitution that defends our rights that matters.

Once one understands the reality, it becomes clear just how horribly dangerous people like Justice Ginsberg and President Obama really are. The entire modern political Left is an anti-freedom abomination that would love nothing more than to undermine and destroy the Constitution.

fadetogray on March 15, 2012 at 11:26 AM

I dream of an American President who would go on national TV and tell the UN to pound sand.

stefanite on March 15, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Either we have a sovereign country or not.

If we are not allowed to identify our own citizens, then why do we have a country at all?

landlines on March 15, 2012 at 11:31 AM

The reality of the situation is it does not matter whether there are voter id requirements or not. In those areas that would be questionable, who is going to enforce the new law. In case you haven’t thought about it, it would be the fox guarding the hen house.

DDay on March 15, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Voting and democracy are tools we put in place within the Republic to help people defend the things that really are our rights, like the right to self-defense and speech and religious expression and our right to be secure in our property. If a tyranny would defend those rights and a democracy would not, then the tyranny would be the better form of government.

Outside of a strongly enforced rule of law that protects our rights, democracy does absolutely nothing to defend our rights in and of itself. Democracy without anti-democratic laws to keep the democracy in check is just mob rule. We would be more free and our rights would be better protected under a broadly corrupt but philosophically indifferent despotism.

It is the rule of law that matters. It is the Constitution that defends our rights that matters.

fadetogray on March 15, 2012 at 11:26 AM

In a philosophical vacuum, I agree with your point. But despotism and unaccountable power breed tyranny almost by definition. It can only be checked by the right of free citizens to directly vote for their representatives in some capacity. This notion under girds any free society that has ever existed or will exist. So if the other rights you identify would not exist but for the right to vote, doesn’t that also make it just as fundamental?

JDF123 on March 15, 2012 at 11:35 AM

The UN is a very dangerous out-of-control insane organization that America needs to leave yesterday. ONly a total idiot would even think it reasonable to try and form an empowered, peerless, competitionless entity. That is the height of stupidity. And yet, America stays in that awful and EXTREMELY DANGEROUS organization. Well … we get what we deserve, I guess. Maybe our nation will have the self-respect to kill the UN (or just leave it and make them move somewhere else) after the Ineligible Idiot from Indonesia is gone? I won’t hold my breath, though, as the GOP doesn’t seem to realize what a major danger and threat the UN is (even aside from the way it wastes tons of money – its least offensive problem).

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 15, 2012 at 11:36 AM

I don’t like the idea of having the “prove” to the government that you’re eligible to exercise a right such as this. I’d much rather have the government prove that I am ineligible to exercise a right, even if it is an inconvenience. Notwithstanding that, if it were completely impractical to have an alternative to photo ID laws, I would agree that they were practically necessary. But I just don’t think that is so.

Borrowing your analogy… so maybe we shouldn’t have to prove our income either? The IRS should call us at their inconvenience? I rather like that idea!

Voter ID is necessary – how else do you keep the dead and illegals from voting?

GrannySunni on March 15, 2012 at 11:37 AM

libfreeordie on March 15, 2012 at 10:58 AM

You mean like this lady?

lorien1973 on March 15, 2012 at 11:39 AM

The dead are registered to vote, is there any evidence that dead voters have cast ballots? The problem is the slow nature with which voters are pushed off the rolls. Which is why voter ID laws are a partisan sham. Almost none of the voter ID laws deal with the source of potential voter fraud, fraudulent registration. If you are fraudulently registered and you bring an ID you would still be able to vote in an election.

And if someone is going through so elaborate a voting fraud conspiracy that they are trying to vote for a dead person who is registered why wouldn’t they be willing/able to get an ID with that person’s name. Are polling volunteers given the technology to see through fake IDs? There are almost no reported instances of voter fraud, i.e. when people voted who were not eligible, that would have been solved by voter ID laws. So we know what these laws are actually about.

libfreeordie on March 15, 2012 at 10:58 AM

So assuming the dead registered to vote while they were alive, I can see your point. The dead should also be allowed to buy liquor and guns and drive cars (I never realized the dead were so lively). So these laws are NOT actually about racisim, they are bout the rights of dead people. Stop discriminating against the dead! Thanks for clearing that up.

ghostwalker1 on March 15, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Spliff Menendez on March 15, 2012 at 10:35 AM

A simple way to avoid that problem, of course, would be to avoid committing felonies.

I do hope you weren’t looking for a whole lot of sympathy here.

Solaratov on March 15, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Borrowing your analogy… so maybe we shouldn’t have to prove our income either? The IRS should call us at their inconvenience? I rather like that idea!

Voter ID is necessary – how else do you keep the dead and illegals from voting?

GrannySunni on March 15, 2012 at 11:37 AM

My whole point is that the right to vote is different from the right to do buy beer, drive, or even pay a lower rate of tax. It’s more important and more deserving to be protected from the power of the government. That’s part of the reason why there are a half dozen or so amendments to the Constitution dealing with protecting the right from government itself. I floated a provisional ballot proposal somewhere up the thread.

JDF123 on March 15, 2012 at 11:43 AM

I live in Virginia, was convicted of a felony (selling an ounce of weed in college) back in 1999 when I was 18. I’m waiting for Gov. McDonnell to “yay” or “nay” my application for restoration of civil rights.

It is stupid that I can’t vote without the Gov’s “OK” a minimum of 10 years after I complete my sentence. Really, really stupid. Especially since I could move to 35+ other states in the Union and be able to vote right away.

Spliff Menendez on March 15, 2012 at 10:35 AM

This is what I’d call a “red herring.” VA’s rules against felony voting have nothing to do with voter ID laws unless your intent is to skirt the law by voting illegally and the voter ID law makes that illegal action more difficult. However, that’s the neat thing about federalism, which unfortunately is being crushed by a more powerful and unconstitutional federal government. You can judge for yourself how important that voting priveledge is to you and move to one of those 35 other states.

RedinPDRM on March 15, 2012 at 11:48 AM

I don’t like the idea of having the “prove” to the government that you’re eligible to exercise a right such as this. I’d much rather have the government prove that I am ineligible to exercise a right, even if it is an inconvenience.

Wouldn’t showing an ID at the voting booth do just that?

“Sorry sir, you’re on my ‘convicted felon who has no right to vote list’. Next in line, please…”

Or maybe you have thought up a way for the gov’t to do that already?

BobMbx on March 15, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Why is a UN group who is based in NYC, meeting in Geneva? Is it because of the skiing? Seriously, who pays for this crap?

Blake on March 15, 2012 at 11:55 AM

So if the other rights you identify would not exist but for the right to vote, doesn’t that also make it just as fundamental?

JDF123 on March 15, 2012 at 11:35 AM

In a word, “no.” Those rights exist whether or not the government is defending them. The ‘right’ to vote only exists when the government is defending it.

It is true that even the most benign despotism will always eventually degenerate into a tyranny that doesn’t recognize our rights, but, then, so do democracies, and the more democratic those democracies are, the faster they degenerate. The Gaza Strip is very democratic. It would be easier to defend the real rights of Gazans if they did not have a democracy at all.

BTW, I am not saying that I do not think an optimal rule of law should have a strong dose of democracy in it. I recognize the value of having democratic institutions as laid out in the Constitution. It is a necessary counterweight against the corruption of the elites.

fadetogray on March 15, 2012 at 11:56 AM

BobMbx, it would do just that. I’m saying that solution shouldn’t be the exclusive way to allow someone to vote unless there is no other viable alternative that places fewer obstacles to vote (even if only idiots are tripped up by the obstacles).

JDF123 on March 15, 2012 at 11:57 AM

My whole point is that the right to vote is different from the right to do buy beer, drive, or even pay a lower rate of tax. It’s more important and more deserving to be protected from the power of the government. That’s part of the reason why there are a half dozen or so amendments to the Constitution dealing with protecting the right from government itself. I floated a provisional ballot proposal somewhere up the thread.

JDF123 on March 15, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Actually, there is no “right” to vote, at least for POTUS, any more than there is to “right” to buy beer or drive. The President and Vice-President are elected by Electors from the respective states. How those Electors are chosen is up to the states. Turns out that the states over the years have decided that popular vote is the method for deciding how the Electors will vote. The exception if those states that became obsessed with the results of the 2000 election in which the national popular vote conflicted with electoral results. Now, if you live in one of those states, your vote for POTUS depends on how the rest of the country votes. One person, one vote? If you live in MD, WA, CA, VT, MA, DC, HI and IL, your vote is dilluted by the number of votes nationwide.

RedinPDRM on March 15, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Just another reason to kick the UN out of the US.

DannoJyd on March 15, 2012 at 12:02 PM

BobMbx, it would do just that. I’m saying that solution shouldn’t be the exclusive way to allow someone to vote unless there is no other viable alternative that places fewer obstacles to vote (even if only idiots are tripped up by the obstacles).

Should the government be required to prove someone is not eligible to purchase beer?

BobMbx on March 15, 2012 at 12:04 PM

In a word, “no.” Those rights exist whether or not the government is defending them. The ‘right’ to vote only exists when the government is defending it.

fadetogray on March 15, 2012 at 11:56 AM

I suppose this is where we disagree. I support the natural rights theory of law. In that sense, those natural rights are “different” from the right to vote for representatives. But if there is tyrannical government (as you admit despotism inevitably turns to), these rights may nominally exist, but not in any meaningful form. Such it is with the right to vote. That’s why I think it’s silly to mark such a profound distinction between them.

As for whether it would be easier to defend the rights of the “democratic Gaza Strip” crowd without democracy, I think it’s a circular argument. Whatever organization would be imposing a government on the Gaza strip hopefully wouldn’t be informed of such values by despotism – it would be the principles of natural rights that have been allowed to take hold because of our representative republic protected by the right to vote.

JDF123 on March 15, 2012 at 12:08 PM

In related news, via the Harriburg Patriot-News:

Voter ID bill passes Pennsylvania House; governor has said he’ll sign it

steebo77 on March 15, 2012 at 12:09 PM

BobMbx, the right to buy beer is not equal to the right to vote.

JDF123 on March 15, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Does the irony not meter peg out that their witnesses need a passport to go to this sham hearing in Geneva?

D-fusit on March 15, 2012 at 12:12 PM

During my last visit to the UN in New York City, there were rooms I could not get into because ‘The Proper’ ID was required.

TimBuk3 on March 15, 2012 at 12:14 PM

. It does not say that we have the right to purchase firearms without identification.

Dante on March 15, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Nor does it say that we have the right to vote without presenting identification.

Solaratov on March 15, 2012 at 12:15 PM

I dream of an American President who would go on national TV and tell the UN to pound sand.

stefanite on March 15, 2012 at 11:27 AM

I second this to infinity…and I assume you mean to tell them to pack up their office crap because the building is being turned into a manufacturing plant.

8thAirForce on March 15, 2012 at 12:25 PM

One can purchase firearms and other arms without producing an id. It is only in some instances in which one has to provide identification (just to be clear, I am opposed to having to provide id, but that’s not the point. The point is the misunderstanding and misreading of the Constitution). Not having an id does not “alienate” you from this right.

Dante on March 15, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Go to any gun store in America and try to purchase a gun without an ID. Be sure to tell the guys behind the counter that an ID isn’t required to purchase guns.
They need a good laugh once in a while.

Solaratov on March 15, 2012 at 12:25 PM

HARRISBURG, Pa., March 14, 2012 — /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Governor Tom Corbett today signed into law House Bill 934, also known as the Photo Voter ID bill, which will require Pennsylvanians to produce photo identification when they vote.

“I am signing this bill because it protects a sacred principle, one shared by every citizen of this nation. That principle is: one person, one vote,” Corbett said. “It sets a simple and clear standard to protect the integrity of our elections.”

The law goes into effect immediately, but the photo ID will not be required for the primary election next month. However, voters will be reminded at that time that a photo ID will be required for November’s general election.

Studies show that 99 percent of Pennsylvania’s eligible voters already have acceptable photo IDs. Any voter who does not have an acceptable form of photo ID can get one, free of charge, at any PennDOT driver license center.

A recent poll determined that 87 percent of Pennsylvania voters favor a law requiring identification at the polls. Thirty-one other states currently require identification and 15 of them require a photo ID.

steebo77 on March 15, 2012 at 12:26 PM

BobMbx, the right to buy beer is not equal to the right to vote.

JDF123 on March 15, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Brilliant! Some rights are more equal than others.

Do I have a right to breathe? Where is that on the priority list?

BobMbx on March 15, 2012 at 12:28 PM

But if there is tyrannical government (as you admit despotism inevitably turns to), these rights may nominally exist, but not in any meaningful form. Such it is with the right to vote. That’s why I think it’s silly to mark such a profound distinction between them.

…….

JDF123 on March 15, 2012 at 12:08 PM

I also pointed out democracies also tend to degenerate.

There is no such thing as the rights ‘nominally’ existing. They exist. Period. That a government does not recognize them makes no difference with regard to the existence of the rights, only with regard to the lack of legitimacy of the government.

This a critically important philosophical point.

The more a citizenry recognizes the existence of our rights and the importance of voting to protect them, the more it makes sense to have stronger democratic institutions. In theory, if every citizen was a rabid defender of their neighbor’s natural rights, then even a direct democracy might work. In theory. Humans are much too naturally adept at rationalizing selfishness for that to ever really happen as a practical matter.

The degree to which the population does not recognize their neighbors’ natural rights also tells us the degree to which democracy needs to be limited. In places like Gaza (or pretty much anywhere in the Muslim world) there can be no serious amount of democracy without destroying natural rights since the people don’t recognize the natural rights of their neighbors.

fadetogray on March 15, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Another thing:

BobMbx, the right to buy beer is not equal to the right to vote.

JDF123 on March 15, 2012 at 12:10 PM

And in Saudi Arabia, women can do neither. Yet Saudi Arabia is supposedly some sort of ordained authority on human rights.

Do you not see how farcical this is?

BobMbx on March 15, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Does the irony not meter peg out that their witnesses need a passport to go to this sham hearing in Geneva?

D-fusit on March 15, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Perhaps they will send them via diplomatic pouch!

TerryW on March 15, 2012 at 12:32 PM

“This really is a tactic that undercuts the growth of your democracy,” said Hillary Shelton, the NAACP’s senior vice president for advocacy, about voter photo ID requirements.

The only thing it undercuts is voting by convicted felons, dogs and dead people. Easy to see why the Democrats fear it so much.

tgharris on March 15, 2012 at 12:33 PM

And yes – Tell the UN to go pound sand!

TerryW on March 15, 2012 at 12:33 PM

there can be no serious amount of democracy without destroying natural rights since the people don’t recognize the natural rights of their neighbors.

fadetogray on March 15, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Ouch. There I went falling right into the trap of referring to rights as something that could be destroyed. That is wrong.

What happens is not that the rights are destroyed, but that the rights are trampled on by an illegitimate (though democratic) government.

fadetogray on March 15, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Since we have motor voter registration (enacted when dems controlled Texas), one of the excuses the left uses to say why minorities don’t have driver’s licenses is they don’t want to be harrassed about their outstanding warrants. No really. That’s a ctually a defense they cite.

DanMan on March 15, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Or, they don’t want to have to go to Jury Duty, which has been running off the Drivers License database for a while now. It was run off the voter registration for a while, but people just didn’t register to vote, they found out that more would prefer to get a driver’s license than vote… go figure!

rgranger on March 15, 2012 at 12:34 PM

If I ever take up a career as a mad bomber, Im starting in Turtle Bay.

katy the mean old lady on March 15, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Screw them . . . why should we care what these third world jerks believe or think?

rplat on March 15, 2012 at 12:39 PM

I live in Virginia, was convicted of a felony (selling an ounce of weed in college) back in 1999 when I was 18. I’m waiting for Gov. McDonnell to “yay” or “nay” my application for restoration of civil rights.

It is stupid that I can’t vote without the Gov’s “OK” a minimum of 10 years after I complete my sentence. Really, really stupid. Especially since I could move to 35+ other states in the Union and be able to vote right away.

Spliff Menendez on March 15, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Sucks to be a convicted felon I guess.

Perhaps you could move to one of those others states? I hear Texas is the greatest.

DarkCurrent on March 15, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Democratic Party: Furthering the War on Voting Integrity.

BuckeyeSam on March 15, 2012 at 10:32 AM

…they don’t know what that last word you said…is!

KOOLAID2 on March 15, 2012 at 12:41 PM

ROFL

What, Syrian inspectors will leaf through our state lawbooks looking for violations?

Piss off, UN.

Bishop on March 15, 2012 at 12:42 PM

One can purchase firearms and other arms without producing an id. It is only in some instances in which one has to provide identification (just to be clear, I am opposed to having to provide id, but that’s not the point. The point is the misunderstanding and misreading of the Constitution). Not having an id does not “alienate” you from this right.

Dante on March 15, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Youre buying guns on the corner? Do you know where they’ve been? It could be rather embarrassing for you.

katy the mean old lady on March 15, 2012 at 12:42 PM

I dream of an American President who would go on national TV and tell the UN to pound sand.

stefanite on March 15, 2012 at 11:27 AM

WAKE UP!!!!!!!

Shy Guy on March 15, 2012 at 12:45 PM

UN Believable:

Clinton Compares Sandra Fluke to Pro-Democracy Women Sold Into Slavery
http://redalertpolitics.com/blog/2012/03/13/clinton-compares-sandra-fluke-to-pro-democracy-women-sold-into-slavery/

When Hillary Clinton spoke at the Women in the World Summit in New York City on Saturday had the audacity to compare Georgetown Law Student Sandra Fluke to women activists in Burma who were beaten, sold into slavery and locked under house arrest.

That’s right. The United States Secretary of State actually tried to equate Ms. Fluke’s quest for birth control coverage with Aung San Suu Kyi‘s struggle for freedom in Burma, where she spent nearly 15 years under house arrest for being a pro-democracy advocate, an act which she eventually won a Nobel Peace Prize for.

Galt2009 on March 15, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Something is missing here in the comments.

Oh yeah!

Where are libfreeordie, liberalforlife, and all the other libs to tell us that voter ID laws are racist?

VibrioCocci on March 15, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Or to tell us that Voter Fraud and Dead People Voting are myths?

Oops, that didn’t take long!

The dead are registered to vote, is there any evidence that dead voters have cast ballots?

libfreeordie on March 15, 2012 at 10:58 AM

You must have been Out to Lunch last month, when here in New Hampshire James O’Keefe actually filmed “voters” getting the ballots of dead “voters”.

And I know this next example happened long before your parents were born, but in 2000 the Far Right Washington Post told us about all of the Dead People who voted for John F. Kennedy in the 1960 election.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36425-2000Nov16?language=printer

excerpt:

In Chicago, where Kennedy won by more than 450,000 votes, local reporters uncovered so many stories of electoral shenanigans–including voting by the dead–that the Chicago Tribune concluded that “the election of November 8 was characterized by such gross and palpable fraud as to justify the conclusion that [Nixon] was deprived of victory.”

A Republican National Committee member filed suit to challenge the Chicago results. The case was assigned to Circuit Court Judge Thomas Kluczynski, a Daley machine loyalist.

On Dec. 13, Kluczynski dismissed the Republican suit. Less than a year later, on Mayor Daley’s recommendation, Kennedy appointed Kluczynski to the federal bench.

Ultimately, a special prosecutor, Morris Wexler, was appointed to investigate the Chicago fraud allegations. Wexler brought charges against 650 election officials but a Democratic judge’s pro-defense rulings crippled Wexler’s case and the charges were dropped.

Finally, in 1962, after an election judge confessed to witnessing vote tampering in Chicago’s 28th ward, three precinct workers pled guilty and served short jail terms.

-snip-

Americans will probably never know for certain if the Democrats stole the election of 1960. But Earl Mazo is pretty sure they did.

“There’s no question in my mind that it was stolen,” he says. “It was stolen like mad. It was stolen in Chicago and in Texas.”

Back in 1960, Mazo, now 81, was the Washington-based national political correspondent for the New York Herald Tribune. After the election, he kept getting calls from reporter friends in Chicago who told him wild stories of election fraud there.

“They were in effect chastising me,” he recalls, “saying, ‘You national reporters, you’re missing the story, why don’t you come out and look?’ ”

So Mazo went out and looked. He went to Chicago, obtained lists of voters in precincts that seemed suspicious and started checking their addresses.

“There was a cemetery where the names on the tombstones were registered and voted,” he recalls. “I remember a house. It was completely gutted. There was nobody there. But there were 56 votes for Kennedy in that house.”

You’re Dismissed now.

Del Dolemonte on March 15, 2012 at 12:48 PM

The USSC has already upheld voter ID laws so there’s not a thing the UN can do except huff and puff, which is all they’ve ever done anyway. This is just the dinosaur NAALCP trying to get some attention and stay relevant.

tommyboy on March 15, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Do I have a right to breathe? Where is that on the priority list?

BobMbx on March 15, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Fifth Amendment.

Solaratov on March 15, 2012 at 12:51 PM

I read an article like this and I am forced to wonder if Ron Paul’s foreign policy ideas are really all that messed up.

The whole UN is a bunch of hypocritical sh*tbags. I don’t give two f*cks what Saudia Arabia (or any other ME nation where the only right women have is the right to spit out babies and be a man’s punching bag) thinks of our societal standards. No nation is perfect, but find me another nation outside of the US and Western Europe where women and minorities have as much equality as they do here (and in W. Europe). Why do we let these backasswards f*cks lecture us on human rights?? If Ms. NAACP thinks some other natio is so damn great on women’s rights, let her go live there. I’m betting she’d like Saudia Arabia’s view of women and foreigners a damn sight less than she likes having to show her driver’s license to vote. But she’s happy to complain about having to do so to that same Saudia Arabian delegate who probably is looking at her in disgust for not covering herself head to toe to prevent his lust… how dare she tempt him like that!

So again I end up back at the question… given the way most of the world views us, what’s really wrong with Ron Paul’s foreign policy? Let’s get the hell out of the UN, quit providing the bulk of the funding for a bunch of 15th century pond scum societies who despise us to sit around and condemn us while they are perfectly ok with men beating their wives for daring to want to drive a car or something. If these countries want to be backasswards sh*tholes when it comes to human rights, and then try to lecture us on a voter ID law, then I vote to tell them to go f*ck themselves. Let the rest of the world burn if that’s what it wants to do, and let’s see what country is left standing at the end of the day.

gravityman on March 15, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Not to worry, with the unstatesmenlike candidates we have, and the politically illiterate people that vote for them,the two ruling class political parties, added to the corrupted media feeding the voters propaganda de jour, we don’t need no stinkin UN to destroy our democracy -we’ve already done that.

Don L on March 15, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Who gives a rip if they look into it? What are they going to do, send UN troops to Texas? Ha, that will go over well with the Texas National Guard.

dczombie on March 15, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Meanwhile Sharia law is being embraced by some of these same folks. Let’s trade voter ID for this? http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/03/15/suicide-moroccan-girl-16-forced-to-marry-rapist-sparks-outrage/

Christian Conservative on March 15, 2012 at 12:56 PM

The Un Un-Nazied the world.

Egfrow on March 15, 2012 at 12:56 PM

What are they going to do, send UN troops to Texas? Ha, that will go over well with the Texas National Guard.

dczombie on March 15, 2012 at 12:53 PM

I’d pay good money to watch that fight.

Solaratov on March 15, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Really it’s difficult to see the problems of others
When you have a large beam in your own eye.
By the way did the UN work out that
Briefcase of cocaine problem they had?

Scumbags the lot of them

MrMoe on March 15, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Gov. Corbett just signed the voter ID law in Pennsylvania. Bye Bye Obama and Casey!

rockmom on March 15, 2012 at 1:02 PM

The continued uselessness of the U.N. body never ceases to amaze me….

Turtle317 on March 15, 2012 at 1:10 PM

I’d much rather have the government prove that I am ineligible to exercise a right, even if it is an inconvenience. Notwithstanding that, if it were completely impractical to have an alternative to photo ID laws, I would agree that they were practically necessary. But I just don’t think that is so.

JDF123 on March 15, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Sounds like we’re on the same page overall, but how would you propose that the government prove one is ineligible to vote if ID is not required?

I’ll agree that proof of a right is a dangerous thing in most cases and may be ok in the abstract for voting, but as a practical matter in the case of voting it is much more effective as well as much simpler to require ID to vote then to backtrack every vote to try to catch (and subsequently prove) which votes were cast illegitimately.

Lost in Jersey on March 15, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Fluke them.

Domestically, and especially state by state, only authority in charge, you need more than an ID. Anyone can get a forged one. You need proof of legal citizenship to be allowed to vote.

Otherwise you are a thug, no different than say North Korea.

Schadenfreude on March 15, 2012 at 1:13 PM

half of the member states should be in the dock of a human-rights tribunal rather than running it.

To say that irony is indignant w/b ludicrous.

Schadenfreude on March 15, 2012 at 1:17 PM

If the NAACP wants to argue against voter ID requirements, they should make their case to American voters, not an international panel of thugs and kleptocrats.

Haven’t they done that and lost?

jdkchem on March 15, 2012 at 1:19 PM

And if the UN Human Rights Commission says that the state of Virginia has been a bad boy by not letting a bad girl vote there, what will they do about it? Send blue-helmet peace-keepers to Virginia? That did a lot of good in Serbia and Rwanda, didn’t it?

Steve Z on March 15, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Here, they will be able to rape at will…because it won’t be rape-rape!

KOOLAID2 on March 15, 2012 at 1:19 PM

The continued uselessness of the U.N. body never ceases to amaze me….

Turtle317 on March 15, 2012 at 1:10 PM

That’s some really nice property that the U.N. sits upon. Couldn’t a creative use of eminent domain be use to kick them out of the U.S.?

Fallon on March 15, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Hey, House of Saud! What does the Grand Muffin have to say about it? Burn any churches, stone any women, homosexuals lately? Bwahahah!!

trl on March 15, 2012 at 1:23 PM

So we know what these laws are actually about.

libfreeordie on March 15, 2012 at 10:58 AM

They are about keeping liberals from getting votes by illegal aliens, dogs, prisoners and dead people.

I agree with you. IDs are not a good indicator. Need proof of legal citizenship to vote legally. Period.

Schadenfreude on March 15, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Maybe that Sandra Day O’Connor’s stupid comment about following European law might just have helped all this?

When is the last time one of these powerful people have been impeached for transparently violating the constitution?

Didn’t George H W Bush pine for the One-world governemnt?

Don L on March 15, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Correction, s/b “they are about lefties getting illegal votes”, because you certainly are never “liberal”.

Schadenfreude on March 15, 2012 at 1:24 PM

SD Tom on March 15, 2012 at 11:18 AM

I’ve had to do this in PA for the past several years. It infuriated me the first time I was asked for my driver’s license just to purchase OTC sinus decongestant pills. It still rankles me; I’d like to see a study from the PA State Police that shows by how much that requirement has reduced the incidences of meth labs. My guess is that it hasn’t made a dent at all.

PatriotGal2257 on March 15, 2012 at 1:34 PM

U.N./Progressive Ruling Class dream come true?

Global, all-controlling government with THEM IN CHARGE.

Possum Holler WILL NOT COMPLY.

PappyD61 on March 15, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Can we please please please toss this worthless useless group of windbags the hell out of our country?

dogsoldier on March 15, 2012 at 1:39 PM

North Korea and Russia will be heading the investigation I assume.

Egfrow on March 15, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Gov. Corbett just signed the voter ID law in Pennsylvania. Bye Bye Obama and Casey!

rockmom on March 15, 2012 at 1:02 PM

It’s about damn time, too. Of course, a Dem acquaintance of mine who takes up space working for the county (not unusual — no one’s ever seen him doing any actual work) is whining about it and is wondering if the Post Office is going to check the ID’s of people who submit absentee ballots.

It’s probably not surprising, but I bet if the guy knows what a copier is, he probably doesn’t know how to use one.

PatriotGal2257 on March 15, 2012 at 1:41 PM

So we know what these laws are actually about.

libfreeordie on March 15, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Yeah, they’re about you and your fellow commies perpetuating the myth that everything is about racism and stealing elections.

darwin on March 15, 2012 at 1:43 PM

The U.N. can sit around reading and analysing anything they want to, but if they think anything they have to say or opine means anything then they are sadly mistaken.

easyt65 on March 15, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Ahhhhh. But Romney says this is merely a “nice” guy who’s a bit of a bumbling boob. No effort to disolve US sovereignty here. Just an incompetent. Romney says so.

Portia46 on March 15, 2012 at 1:48 PM

It’s more important and more deserving to be protected from the power of the government. That’s part of the reason why there are a half dozen or so amendments to the Constitution dealing with protecting the right from government itself.
JDF123 on March 15, 2012 at 11:43 AM

And just how do you protect that right? If I wanted to ensure my candidate wins, without voter ID requirements I can into a voting station in your state and claim I am JDF123, get a ballot and vote the way I want. Without voter ID, nobody can prove I’m NOT you and when/if you show up and are told you already voted, you have no recourse either (no ID to prove who you are remember). In fact you might be arrested for trying to vote twice (unless you show a Dem, union, or NAACP card – oh darn that ID thing again). I just stole your “right” to vote and you can’t do a darn thing about it.

dentarthurdent on March 15, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Go to any gun store in America and try to purchase a gun without an ID. Be sure to tell the guys behind the counter that an ID isn’t required to purchase guns.
They need a good laugh once in a while.

Solaratov on March 15, 2012 at 12:25 PM

You don’t read very well. I said that in some instances identification is required and in other instances it is not.

Youre buying guns on the corner? Do you know where they’ve been? It could be rather embarrassing for you.

katy the mean old lady on March 15, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Sigh. If people would only educate themselves.

Dante on March 15, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Fluke them.

Domestically, and especially state by state, only authority in charge, you need more than an ID. Anyone can get a forged one. You need proof of legal citizenship to be allowed to vote.

Schadenfreude on March 15, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Thank goodness you don’t need proof of legal citizenship to actually be president!/sarc

The Honey Badger

The Honey Badger on March 15, 2012 at 1:51 PM

BobMbx, the right to buy beer is not equal to the right to vote.

JDF123 on March 15, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Again, there is no such thing as a right to vote. That “right” does not exist.

Dante on March 15, 2012 at 1:53 PM

I’m so tired of showing my ID (and being limited to the amount I can buy) to get allergy meds for the family. I was at Target and had to show ID to get the plain Robitussin that was sold on the SHELF. I have to show ID to buy spray paint for my crafting! I also remember reading somewhere that there was a state going to make it so you had to show ID to buy Drano or Liquid Plumber. But show ID to vote. Heck no.

JennM111 on March 15, 2012 at 1:55 PM

JennM111 on March 15, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Exactly. I would say that means those who oppose voter ID actually think voting is LESS important than Drano, spray paint and medicine, OR they want the ability to commit voter fraud. Those are the only logical options I see in their arguments.

dentarthurdent on March 15, 2012 at 1:59 PM

I just got back from the UPS Store and the guy next to me had to show photo ID to pay with a credit card. Should the UPS Store be brought up on UN Human Rights violations? Somebody call the world human rights police!

Urban Infidel on March 15, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Again, there is no such thing as a right to vote. That “right” does not exist.

Dante on March 15, 2012 at 1:53 PM

In “liberal” parlance everything is a right.

darwin on March 15, 2012 at 2:01 PM

I just got back from the UPS Store and the guy next to me had to show photo ID to pay with a credit card. Should the UPS Store be brought up on UN Human Rights violations? Somebody call the world human rights police!

Urban Infidel on March 15, 2012 at 1:59 PM

I’m shocked. I had no idea UPS was actively engaged in restricting the right of minorities to ship packages.

darwin on March 15, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Actually this issue could get interesting by going in front of some of these middle east countries. Remember the big deal about people freely voting for the first time in Iraq and Afghanistan? They were all showing their purple stained thumbs. These countries may or may not require you to show a photo ID – but they DO require you to put a fingerprint on your ballot. If the libs in this country think showing an ID is a hassle, how much more intrusive an ID requirement could you get than putting a fingerprint on your ballot – beyond maybe a DNA sample?

dentarthurdent on March 15, 2012 at 2:05 PM

I’m shocked. I had no idea UPS was actively engaged in restricting the right of minorities to ship packages.

darwin on March 15, 2012 at 2:03 PM

You know, it didn’t occur to me at first so I didn’t mention it before, but the guy was black. So there you have it. Proof positive evidence of systemic genocidal racism at the UPS Store.

Urban Infidel on March 15, 2012 at 2:06 PM

One can purchase firearms and other arms without producing an id. It is only in some instances in which one has to provide identification (just to be clear, I am opposed to having to provide id, but that’s not the point. The point is the misunderstanding and misreading of the Constitution). Not having an id does not “alienate” you from this right.

Dante on March 15, 2012 at 11:07 AM

I actually agree with you on voting not really being a “right”, but this red herring into the 2nd Amendment just looks like an attempt to twist and pervert the meaning of words. In order to “keep and bear arms” you must first have the ability to make or purchase those arms – without the ability to get them, you can’t keep and bear them – even in 18th century when the Constitution was written.

Your logic reminds me of a situation I had about 10 years ago, getting new badges to get on a military base after I changed companies. I filled out all the paperwork given to me, got a new badge issued to be able to get into all of the major headquarters buildings on base, then went to the next desk to get a sticker for my car. The Airman looked through the papers and said “you need another letter specifying the need to get on base”. I pointed out that based on the papers in his hand they just gave me a badge to get into every building on base, and he just replied “ya but that doesn’t mean you have a need to get on base”.
Your logic on the 2nd Amendment is the same.

dentarthurdent on March 15, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3