North Carolina Puts Voter ID on the Ballot

Civitas supports legislation requiring all voters to present a voter photo ID when casting a ballot. Our most recent poll shows the majority of likely voters support it, too. #CivitasPoll #NCGA #NCPOL

1:27 PM - 8 Jun 2018

• 7 Retweets
• 11 Likes
• 

0 replies7 retweets11 likes

 

 

I remember watching poll results for Alabama’s special election for the U.S. Senate when something occurred to me: why are only 2% of Montgomery County precincts being reported? All other counties were finished or nearly finished tabulating their votes except for Montgomery. Then an avalanche of votes for Doug Jones came sliding in, ultimately handing this Democrat a victory.


What happened? Well, if we’re to believe the mainstream media, blacks turned out in record number for a special election. Their numbers even exceeded Barack Obama’s 2012 presidential election. Here is what NPR reported about this historic turnout:


Black voters made up 29 percent of the electorate in Alabama's special Senate election, according to exit polling. That percentage is slightly more than the percentage of Black voters in the state who turned out for Barack Obama in 2012. And a full 96 percent of Black voters in Alabama Tuesday supported Jones, including 98 percent of African-American women. "Black women led us to victory. Black women are the backbone of the Democratic party," Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez tweeted Wednesday morning, "and we can't take that for granted. Period."


And we’re expected to believe there were no shenanigans in this “special” election. Hogwash!


Citizens must have faith that their elections are valid and Democratic Party proof. What I mean by that is tamper proof and the best way to ensure the integrity of the ballot is to banish same-day registration and implement voter ID.


We can hear the howling now. North Carolina is putting Voter ID on the ballot as a constitutional amendment. Here is what the editorial board at the Charlotte Observer had to say:


Rep. John Sauls, a Lee County Republican who is a primary sponsor of the constitutional amendment, said, “Our state must not tolerate anyone’s vote being threatened because lawmakers failed to prevent fraud.”

What a sham. For years, Republicans in North Carolina alleged that in-person fraudulent voting is rampant. Then, in April 2017, the state Board of Elections released the results of an extensive, objective audit of the 2016 election. It found that out of almost 4.8 million votes cast, one fraudulent vote probably would have been avoided with a photo voter ID law. One!

If Sauls is worried about lawmakers failing to prevent fraud, he should pay more attention to Russian hacking or mail-in absentee-ballot fraud, both of which pose bigger threats than someone showing up at the polls illegitimately.

Another misguided justification? “Moore emphasized that North Carolinians show IDs for far more trivial matters than participating in elections,” his press release said.

Voting, unlike driving or buying strong narcotic cough medicine, is a constitutional right. The others are privileges. Americans should not have to jump through artificial – and for a small number of people, substantial – hoops to exercise their constitutional rights.


Russian hacking? Really? Oh yeah, I’m sure those pesky Russians are working night and day determining which party controls North Carolina's General Assembly. What a bunch of maroons.


Voting isn’t a constitutional right. People have to meet certain qualifications to vote. Voting privileges can be taken away from a citizen; a constitutional right cannot. This is the kind of stupidity we have to deal with in the mainstream media.


If North Carolinians pass a constitutional amendment for voter ID, you can damn well bet libtard organizations will find a judge to rule this measure unconstitutional. Liberals say they believe in democracy, but only the kind they approve.


Source:

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/13/570531505/black-votes-matter-african-americans-propel-jones-to-alabama-win

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/editorials/article212762209.html

A Liberal Proposes Amendments for Progressive/California Caliphate

Sometimes you come across an article, or an op-ed, that almost makes your head explode.  I have to give credit to the libtards at the Charlotte Observer.  They have an uncanny ability to ferret out and publish some of the most ridiculous and disingenuous pieces of trash that only a fish wrap can appreciate.  The latest absurdity was penned by Jonathan Bernstein at Bloomberg Review.

There has been a lot of buzz about invoking Article V to convene a convention of the States as a means to restore relevancy to our federalist system as dictated in our Constitution.  Mr. Bernstein, and his ilk, has no regard for this noble endeavor.  No, he would rather implement a monstrosity, or some sort of Californian death star that would lord progressivism over a hapless people who are starving for life, liberty and property.  Here is his first proposed amendment:

 The right to vote: It doesn’t appear in the Constitution. It should.

Actually, the 26^th Amendment grants that very right to persons over 18 years of age.  Would Mr. Bernstein allow five year olds to pull a lever?  We might as well.  I’ve met quite a few progressives who have the mentality of a child.

Statehood for the District of Columbia. There’s no legitimate justification for disenfranchising citizens in the U.S. capital. This can be fixed without an amendment, but the best way would be through the Constitution.

The residents of Washington D.C. are not disenfranchised.  They are afforded electors as dictated in the 23^rd Amendment.  I find this particular proposal insulting.  That hellhole town is the seat of government.  You can’t get more representation that that!  As a matter of fact, I wouldn’t allow that town to have any influence in presidential elections at all.  I will go even further.  I propose that no federal employee - except military - should be allowed to vote in any election that pertains to the general government.  These people will expand a totalitarian state at the expense of their fellow citizens and then lord their power over us all.

As long as we have the Electoral College, get rid of the loopholes, mainly by getting rid of the electors. Each state’s electoral votes should automatically be cast for the candidate who wins them according to the laws of that state. I’d include wording to make it clear that the state must hold an election and apportion the electoral votes based on whatever the rules were going in. Eliminate both the problem of disloyal electors and the chance that a state legislature would change the rules after the fact (or even, as they can do now under the current wording of the Constitution, cancel the election entirely and appoint electors themselves).

I have no idea what this guy is talking about.  He wants to get rid of the electors in an Electoral College system by dictating to the states rules to remedy problems that, I guess, might come about from a brokered convention?  Personally, I would rather have a proportional system instead of a winner-takes-all.  I don’t believe more populist areas in a state should lord their values over their rural neighbors.

Eliminate the “natural born citizen” requirement for presidents. Any citizen should be eligible

I guess that means a child born to illegal aliens who have no allegiance to this country should have the means to “rule” this country.  Didn’t we learn anything from the Obama presidency?

Remove the minimum age requirements for federal office.

Why?

Term limits for Supreme Court justices – probably 18- year terms, staggered so that one opening comes up every two years. I can see arguments for and against – but if we did it, the amendment should formally set the nine-justice limit, ending the possibility of future court-packing (currently there’s no constitutional provision specifying the court’s size).

How about repealing the 14^th Amendment?  That would stop a whole lot of judicial activism.

Public financing of elections. Don’t require it, but make it clear it’s allowed. I oppose amendments to restrict private money to candidates and parties, or to restrict what parties can do with their money, but I support partial public financing – and fear the court may rule against it in the future.

No public financing!  Sooner or later, progressives will require it.

Address the malapportionment of the Senate. There’s no justification in democratic theory for giving Wyoming (population of less than 600,000) the same number of senators as California (population: 40 million) has. But absolute proportionality isn’t necessary, and the Senate should stay small. Suppose we keep two senators for each state, but weigh their votes differently. Wyoming’s senators would each get half a vote, for example, for a total of one, and California’s two senators would be given five each – 10 total. Alas, Article V of the Constitution guarantees “that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” And Wyoming, Vermont and the Dakotas will make sure it stays that way.

This proposal is really offensive.  First of all, the Senate was designed to representative the States, that was until the 17th Amendment.  The House of Representatives represents the people.  This is basic stuff.  What Mr. Bernstein is proposing is a California caliphate, not a constitutional republic.

If this man’s proposals were to ever become the law of the land, I guarantee you there would be an armed revolution.

Source:

 http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article55470605.html#storylink=cpy

NC Committee Debate Need for States' Convention

The first step to recovery is recognizing you have a problem.  That’s what North Carolina’s House Judiciary Committee did when they discussed a proposal to convene a states’ convention to amend the U.S. Constitution.

It has become quite apparent this country has an unrestrained and abusive federal government.  Something must be done. 

Opponents warn of a runaway convention.  Proponents declare proposed amendments would be limited in scope.  Either way we have a runaway federal government.  The following sentiments sum up exactly what Washington D.C. has become:

Gary Kennedy from Youngsville also spoke in support of the convention call, telling the committee that the country's "enemy is within."

"We have a runaway convention now. It’s called the Congress and the executive branch and the judicial branch," Kennedy said. "When you give people that kind of power, they will be corrupt.

"I can see no other peaceful solution to the problems we face. I don’t want to see armed rebellion," he said.

"We have to do something," agreed Rep. Bob Steinburg, R-Chowan. "This situation, this Washington, is not going to fix itself, and it’s got to happen soon."

"No amount of electing good people is going to change Washington, D.C., structurally, the way it needs to be changed," Farris added.

Convention, dissolution or totalitarianism: take your pick.

Source:  http://www.wral.com/house-panel-debates-constitutional-convention/14553885/#CbSQqXKYlpXmBdiD.99