NAACP Requires Photo I.D. to See Holder Speak in State Being

[The Annoyed Man]

NAACP Requires Photo I.D. to See Holder Speak in State Being Sued Over Voter ID
Katie Pavlich
News Editor, Townhall
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavli ... lder_speak

Earlier today, Attorney General Eric Holder addressed the NAACP Nation Convention at the George R. Brown Convention Center in Houston, Texas. What did media need in order to attend? That's right, government issued photo identification (and a second form of identification too!), something both Holder and the NAACP stand firmly against when it comes to voting. Holder's DOJ is currently suing Texas for "discriminatory" voter ID laws. From the press release:

All media must present government-issued photo I.D. (such as a driver’s license) as well as valid media credentials. Members of the media must RSVP to receive press credentials at http://action.naacp.org/page/s/registration" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. For security purposes, media check-in and equipment set up must be completed by 7:45 a.m. CDT for an 8:00 a.m. CDT security sweep. Once the security sweep is completed, additional media equipment will NOT be permitted to enter and swept equipment will NOT be permitted to exit.

Ironically, NAACP President Ben Jealous railed against voter ID just before Holder took the stage.

The head of the NAACP on Monday likened the group's fight against conservative-backed voter ID laws that have been passed in several states to the great civil rights battles of the 1960s.

You democrats get that? In order to see our Attorney General give a speech against voter ID laws, you have to present a photo ID. A citizen has to show an ID to see an Attorney General give a speech against requiring voters to present an ID to make sure they are who they say they are.

The ironies abound. And this, from the most transparent administration in history.

[74novaman]

You democrats get that? In order to see our Attorney General give a speech against voter ID laws, you have to present a photo ID. A citizen has to show an ID to see an Attorney General give a speech against requiring voters to present an ID to make sure they are who they say they are.

The ironies abound. And this, from the most transparent administration in history.

Oh my. At this point all we can do is laugh because otherwise I'll bash my head into a pulp in frustration.

over is good.

I did grit my teeth when I heard on the radio that Holder was bold enough to talk about "Constitutional rights" regarding voting when I'm pretty convinced he was actively involved with a plot to undermine the 2nd amendment.

[Middle Age Russ]

I'm with you... The blatant hypocrisy is unfathomable, even for the elite leftists who know better than the rest of us unwashed masses. They'd never admit it, of course, because if you say something often enough and loud enough it must be true.

[The Annoyed Man]

You democrats get that? In order to see our Attorney General give a speech against voter ID laws, you have to present a photo ID. A citizen has to show an ID to see an Attorney General give a speech against requiring voters to present an ID to make sure they are who they say they are.

The ironies abound. And this, from the most transparent administration in history.

Oh my. At this point all we can do is laugh because otherwise I'll bash my head into a pulp in frustration.

over is good.

I did grit my teeth when I heard on the radio that Holder was bold enough to talk about "Constitutional rights" regarding voting when I'm pretty convinced he was actively involved with a plot to undermine the 2nd amendment.

God, I wish I could just laugh and shake my head. I'm by no means the oldest guy on this board, but I've been a registered voter since I turned 21 in 1973......that's 39 years now.........and I've never missed voting in any election in which I was eligible to vote since then. And in all this time, I've never seen such an unAmerican and dishonest administration. Even Richard Nixon had more integrity.....and at least he called himself a conservative. Eisenhower was the first president of whom I was aware. I remember Jack Kennedy's election. Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II..........none of them were perfect, and some of them were just downright wrong, and one of them, Carter, was just plain incompetent. But none of them were as deeply evil, malevolent, dishonest, and thuggish as Obama and his merry band of Chicago mafioso. It's not just that he was experientially unqualified, but he had a proven and well documented record of hostility to capitalism, the rule of law, a racist distrust of white people, studying at the feet of a deeply racist pastor for 20 years, a devotee of Saul Alinsky, intellectual dishonesty in college, changing his place of birth to suit whatever narrative he was trying to sell at the moment, and on and on and on. The man is the most deeply flawed human being to ever run for or hold the office.

If he is reelected, we are in deep, DEEP bandini.

[74novaman]

God, I wish I could just laugh and shake my head.

Its not that I think its actually funny, its just that there is nothing else I can do until November.

One of Alinskys rules for radicals was to ridicule the opposition. I think its about time we took a page from their book. When folks say with a straight face that Holder cares about Constitutional rights, laugh in their face. What else can we do at this point?

[Slowplay]

Maybe it's just me, but I fail to see a valid comparison...

First - It's not like you're going to have dead people attending this event,

Second - Registering your cats to attend the event makes no sense, and

Last - I didn't see anybody handing out cigarettes or small bills to get folks registered or loaded on buses to attend this event.

Why you'd require photo ID for one and not the other makes perfect sense.

You guys...

[Oldgringo]

I guess the late Al Jolson (look him up) would be denied admission?

[philip964]

Some times the title needs nothing more. That is great.

[RPB]

That is so discriminatory against the minority-vampires who can't get a photo ID
(they don't show up in film or mirrors right? So they can't get a photo taken ...)

[Dreamliner]

It's becoming like the movie Idiocracy!

[Nicolai]

Not really on-topic, but may qualify for the "hypocrisy of the day" award, in yet another Pinocchio moment, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was railing against Mitt Romney's owning Swiss bank accounts, and Fox News reported that Rep. Schultz herself has Swiss bank accounts.

[karder]

I've never seen such an unAmerican and dishonest administration.

That is a fact.

The Democrats have a long history of going down to housing projects, health clinics, and so on and registering anything with a pulse. Then on election day, they throw parties at the housing projects, complete with beer, and bring in the busses to truck hundreds of people to the polls who would not be motivated to get up and go voting on their own. Of course these beer filled voters are given instructions to vote Democrat. I have witnessed this personally, so this is not something I read on the web.

Many of these people, who would not be motivated to register, or go to the polls on their own, may not have been motivated to go get IDs, or may not have IDs on them when the bus pulls up. This makes trucking the entire population of the public housing authority to the polls a bit more problematic.

These are the minority voters that Holder is afraid will be disenfranchised. Of course, anyone of these people is fully capable of getting an ID and taking themselves to the polls on election day if they wish to participate in the system. Unfortunately, that is not what BHO is worried about. He is more interested in buying an election with beer and hotdogs.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Maybe it's just me, but I fail to see a valid comparison...

First - It's not like you're going to have dead people attending this event,

Second - Registering your cats to attend the event makes no sense, and

Last - I didn't see anybody handing out cigarettes or small bills to get folks registered or loaded on buses to attend this event.

Why you'd require photo ID for one and not the other makes perfect sense.

You guys...

The lie that opponents of voter ID laws tell is that it disenfranchises the poor who are predominantly minority. If the NAACP is requiring a photo ID to attend their conference, then it's certainly hypocritical because it denies entry to the very people they claim to represent, the very people the NAACP claims the government should trust not to engage in voter fraud. If it is the U.S. Government/Secret Service that's requiring a photo ID, then it's not only hypocritical it arguably violates the right of assembly. (Okay, that's a stretch.)

Chas.

[canvasbck]

Maybe it's just me, but I fail to see a valid comparison...

First - It's not like you're going to have dead people attending this event,

Second - Registering your cats to attend the event makes no sense, and

Last - I didn't see anybody handing out cigarettes or small bills to get folks registered or loaded on buses to attend this event.

Why you'd require photo ID for one and not the other makes perfect sense.

You guys...

The lie that opponents of voter ID laws tell is that it disenfranchises the poor who are predominantly minority. If the NAACP is requiring a photo ID to attend their conference, then it's certainly hypocritical because it denies entry to the very people they claim to represent, the very people the NAACP claims the government should trust not to engage in voter fraud. If it is the U.S. Government/Secret Service that's requiring a photo ID, then it's not only hypocritical it arguably violates the right of assembly. (Okay, that's a stretch.)
Chas.

That is no more of a stretch than claiming that votor ID laws violate the right to vote.

[Slowplay]

The lie that opponents of voter ID laws tell is that it disenfranchises the poor who are predominantly minority. If the NAACP is requiring a photo ID to attend their conference, then it's certainly hypocritical because it denies entry to the very people they claim to represent, the very people the NAACP claims the government should trust not to engage in voter fraud. If it is the U.S. Government/Secret Service that's requiring a photo ID, then it's not only hypocritical it arguably violates the right of assembly. (Okay, that's a stretch.)

Chas.

Well, I guess they don't mind disenfranchising poor minorities when it comes to their conference. They must only need them to be in their camp when it comes to getting support from them or using them for policical reasons.

Playing devil's advocate, it's not like Holder et al could stand up at the conference and claim that 'every vote must be counted, including those that have been historically disenfranchised like the undocumented, the dead, the ficticious, the duplicitous/fraudulent, and the non-human.'