Obama’s Voter Supression Hypocrisy

(Editor’s note: This commentary originally appeared at Black Community News.)

At the recent annual convention of Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, President Obama said his political opponents are “pass[ing] laws to make it harder, not easier, to vote.”

It was another attempt by the President and his supporters to energize their base — in this case, African-Americans — through scare stories they hope will move masses to the polls in November.

Claims over whether voter ID and other polling place protections are intentional attempts to suppress minority voters generally supportive of liberal politicians continue to garner headlines. Historic attempts to suppress votes cannot be denied, but there have been numerous attempts to deny voters’ voices when convenient or expedient — and not all are Jim Crow analogies.

For example, there was an upstart community organizer from Chicago who ran for a state senate seat in Illinois in 1996. He won his party’s nomination, in part, by invalidating thousands of names on his opponents’ petitions – including those supporting the incumbent – by looking for inconsistencies in names, addresses, and pertinent registration information.

Currently embattled ballot protection efforts such as list purges are used to deal with many of these same inconsistencies this candidate used to knock out his competition and eventually run unopposed in the primary and win easily that November.

During the 2008 presidential primaries, party officials in Florida and Michigan improperly held their primaries earlier than national party leaders allowed. The Republican Party held to its rule that such violations meant only half a state’s delegation would be seated at the convention, but Democrats held their delegations in political limbo. Full voting rights were restored just before the convention — after the presumptive nominee was secure in his victory. Until then, the nominee — once again, the community organizer from Illinois — remained remarkably silent as his party threatened to essentially invalidate primary votes in two states.

Ironically, the organizer responsible for both those political maneuvers was the same person complaining about voter suppression at Sharpton’s convention — President Barack Obama.

To think that only one political party might suppress minority votes with malicious intent is erroneous. Politics is a tough game. To assume only one party or group would resort to such tactics is naïve and preposterous. Such naiveté leads to ironies such as our President, who actively limited voter options in 1996 and was silent when votes were at risk of being invalidated in 2008, now seeking to invigorate a lackluster base by stoking fears of voter suppression.

Sadly, when political power is the goal instead of addressing the problems ailing minority communities, actions such as Obama’s seem more commonplace.

The oft-repeated statistic that 25 percent of African-Americans lack valid identification should not be a reality in which we live, but a problem upon which we place intense focus.

Imagine the disparate economic suppression occurring when a quarter of any community cannot open a banking account, attend institutions of higher education, travel by air or rail to find jobs, or enter government buildings.

Pages: 1 2

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

"Loophole" from Obama's IRS: Protect your IRA or 401(k) with gold and silver... click here to get a NO-COST Info Guide >


  1. Edwardkoziol says:

    This president is so full of shit that it's not funny.Why are dead people allowed to vote for democraps.He goes on that goofy alien from outter space Al Sharpton show because he knows that Al will kiss his dick and let him say whatever he wants

  2. MuslimLuvChrist says:

    Voter ID laws have nothing to do with racism, but the democrap argument is entirely based on it. U.S. District Court Judge just ruled that Arizona and Kansas have every legal right to enforce their new voter ID laws. obama/holder’s DOINJ prevented the EAC from issuing amended federal forms in those states. The states sued holder, and won. obama/holder’s DOINJ claimed that voter ID laws suppress voter turnout and that there is “no such thing as voter fraud (people have gone to prison holder!).” obama/holder argue photo ID at a voting booth is “racist,” since it’s discriminatory to poor people who may not have one (they have SSN cards). obama/holder’s victims must have valid ID to receive Medicaid, be issued welfare checks, to have a bank account to cash welfare checks… If requiring a valid ID is an affront to our civil rights, why are all of those institutions not charged with civil rights violations? Since it’s logical to validate ID at the polling booth, which increases electoral integrity, we can only wonder at the real intent behind obama/holder’s opposition to voter ID laws. obama/holder’s case is that when logic can be suspended, allege racism. The democrap's very argument is based on racism itself, their argument infers that blacks and hispanics are not intelligent enough, or somehow incapable of procuring government photo ID! It’s not a matter of poverty since valid ID is required for receipt of government services. So their argument is race-based, and by definition racist. Going back to LBJ’s “Great Society” programs and the “War on Poverty,” the doling of governmental “freebies” and goodies was intended to buy fealty from the impoverished voter base. This was validated by LBJ’s own words when he said, “I’ll have those ngrs voting Democrapic for the next 200 years.”

Speak Your Mind