Conservative Anti-Mormon Bias is Self-Defeating

If the adage is true that "statistics don't lie," then there is deeper bias in America against Mormons than there is against African-Americans or Jews. According to a Newsweek poll cited by Robert Novak in his latest Washington Post Column, "A Mormon in the White House?":

28 percent of Americans would not vote for any member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- demonstrating much greater hostility than to a Jewish or African-American candidate. Mormonism is the only minority category toward which bias in America has deepened.

What do these poll results really mean? Is it the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that causes such prejudice? Is it the behavior of individual members of the LDS Church that convinces 28 percent of Americans that a member of that church should never be president? Considering that the poll question apparently did not single out Mitt Romney for scrutiny, the root cause of the bias runs deeper than personal or political dislike of Romney himself. 28 percent would not vote for "any member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints."

You probably have a friend or neighbor who is a member of the LDS Church. From what you know of him or his family, would you withhold your vote from him if he were politically viable and urged to run for the presidency? If the answer is no, and you are a political conservative, what is the criteria on which you based your decision?

Was it the specter of polygamy, a topic favored by the media for its potential for stories of prurient interest? After all, in their recent titillating coverage of the capture of polygamist fugitive Warren Jeffs or conviction of a polygamist for "marrying" and raping his teenage cousin, very few news organizations bothered to explain to viewers or readers that neither of those men were in any way affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, better known as Mormon or LDS. The church officially outlawed the practice of polygamy in 1890, and had stopped preaching or encouraging the practice of it long before that date in accordance with the federal law prohibiting polygamy in U.S. Territories. The church excommunicates anyone who defies the national law and church doctrine by engaging in the practice of it.

The fugitive and convicted polygamists belong to what is known as the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which broke off of the original faith and established itself in sparse, rural areas of Southern Utah and parts of Arizona. These Fundamentalists are the only polygamists in Utah for nearly 120 years, but the news media never quite mention that fact in their stories. Even though there are no Mormon polygamists in Utah, the state is synonymous in the minds of many voters with polygamy.

Lumping together members of the LDS Church with the separate Fundamentalists is the equivalent of arguing that all scientists must be Scientologists simply because they share the same root word, science.

Perhaps your hesitation stemmed from skepticism about stories of gold plates containing writings of ancient prophets, or visions of angels and heavenly beings. It is interesting that anyone who believes in the bible would find such claims outrageous. I have never seen or touched any of the scrolls that biblical prophets and apostles wrote upon, but that does not invalidate for me the bible as a holy book of scripture. There are ample Biblical accounts of visions and appearances of heavenly beings, yet I do not believe them contrived or fictional.

Deepening voter bias against Mormons may actually represent something flattering about the LDS Church and its members. While family values and parental responsibility in American society steadily decline, the LDS Church emphasizes core conservative values clearly and concisely. While various religions adopt acceptance of open homosexuality and civil unions or gay marriages, the LDS Church encouraged its members to support amending the Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman. While society becomes permissive of and celebrates promiscuity before and throughout marriage, the LDS Church teaches its youth to maintain their virtue and cherish chastity. Saving oneself for marriage is not a quaint, unrealistic, or old-fashioned notion to Mormons. While abortion has become an accepted method of birth control in society, the LDS Church operates LDS Family Services and advocates adoption and the sanctity of life.

Did you recognize genuine conservative ideology in these teachings? How about dedicating one evening each week exclusively for family activities? Encouraging members to donate charitable funds to temporarily care for the financial needs of struggling fellow members to keep them off of government welfare rolls? If conservatism is synonymous with self-reliance rather than government handouts, then Mormonism is synonymous with conservatism when it comes to finances and rugged individualism.

Conservatives like big ideas. Newt Gingrich was wildly successful leading the Republican revolution in 1994 because of the Contract with America, a document that clearly spelled out what conservatism stands for and what the Republican Congress would achieve if elected. Churches also at times set forth their teachings in clear public documents. In 1995, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints issued "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." In this document, the LDS Church clearly stated its positions on the divine nature of mankind, gay marriage, gender, abortion, chastity, preservation of the nuclear family, and the importance encouraging world governments to preserve the family as the central unit of society. If you are conservative, consider whether you would vote for a candidate with the following beliefs:

...marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

...We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

...We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God's eternal plan.

...Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities.

...we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

If bias in America is deepening against members of a church that unashamedly proclaims these decidedly conservative values, then we should be asking ourselves why. If conservatives would not vote for any LDS candidate for the presidency, then perhaps they are conservative in name only. Society is morally adrift and floating further out to sea at a faster pace than ever before. As the gulf between itself and the above teachings of the LDS Church grows ever wider, its animosity toward Mormons increases in equal proportions because society does not like to be told it is morally corrupt regardless of the messenger.

Thus, deepening bias against the LDS Church, in a sadly ironic way, may actually be a moral badge of honor for maligned Mormons. After all, African-Americans and Jews used to be the groups voters indicated they would not vote for, and yet both made marvelous contributions to and became integral parts of both political parties once bigotry took a back seat to shared ideology.


Technorati Tags:
LDS, Mormon, Mitt Romney, Religious Bias, Prejudice, Newsweek Polls, Robert Novak, Conservatism, Family Values

Taxing Our Way to Victory in Iraq

Congressman David Obey, D-WI, may have been right in theory about instituting a war tax without even knowing the reasons why. Had he cited history in support of his proposal, there might have been less of a scrap over it. When Obey recently floated the idea of charging taxpayers a surcharge to fund the Iraq War, his idea was pilloried by conservatives and shunned by fellow liberals. Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed her opposition to the war surcharge proposal, but couched it in her overall opposition to the war. She did not clarify whether if this were a war championed by Democrats she would be in favor of a war surcharge or similar vehicle to fund a war. Conservative critiques of Obey’s war tax focused on standard opposition to additional or raised taxes of any kind. Conservatives also denounced Obey’s plan for tying the funding of our troops in the field to tax increases, which they consider a form of political extortion. Soldiers would be unfortunate pawns whose very safety would hinge on a forced surcharge of between two and fifteen percent of taxpayer incomes to support the war.

Rejecting Obey’s proposal outright may be the politically savvy course of action for lawmakers, but does the concept of a war tax, in a different form than Obey's idea, have merit? Readers may think us delirious, but we would support a war tax, albeit not in the form or function that Obey envisions. Later in this post we will explain two forms of this tax that would be sensible and acceptable to fiscal conservatives, if there are any remaining, in both parties.

War surcharges and other special government programs to fund wars are not new and have been used in virtually every war in our nation’s history. Surcharges, bond drives, and tax increases have all been implemented with varying degrees of success to offset the high costs of wars.

Asking Americans to tighten their fiscal belts to sacrifice for war efforts has been the clarion call throughout our history. Government mandated rationing of scrap metals, rubber, and other materials needed for war production were common and accepted. Previous generations understood that war demands sacrifice by the individual for the common good. Of course, taxes are not exactly a sacrifice, since sacrifice implies a voluntary act and each individual may or may not be in favor of a particular tax. Yet in a democratic republic, each taxpayer is at least represented and has a voice in the decision to levy a tax or not.

Wars are inherently the top priority of a nation, and only in an economically spoiled society would citizens expect their quality of life and financial stability to remain stable and comfortable in war time.

Obey’s war surcharge proposal is flawed, not necessarily in what it is intended to achieve, funding the war, but in its premise that funding the war should place an additional drain on taxpayers’ incomes. It is classic liberal ideology to propose an entirely new and separate tax to pay for something rather than identifying programs that could be eliminated and taxes that we already pay that are not being used for their intended purposes.

For example, our Constitution identifies “provide for the common defense” as a fundamental responsibility of the national government, with ample powers granted therein to raise and maintain armed services to accomplish that mandate. Thus taxpayers should assume that the national government would use their tax money to support this basic provision before siphoning off funds for other purposes.

We can find no provision in the Constitution that mentions using taxpayer money to fund public television (PBS), quasi-obscene “art” exhibits and grants (National Endowment for the Arts), federal oversight of local and state education (National Education Association or Department of Education), or AIDS and birth control education including condom distribution (same educational entities as previous). Yet each year Americans pay between fifteen and thirty percent of their incomes to support burgeoning federal spending on these and other programs that venture far beyond the scope and intent of the Constitutional mandate of limited government and the moral beliefs of many taxpayers.

If given a choice, we would rather know that our fifteen to thirty percent taxation is funding an ongoing war than “artistic” displays of upside-down urinals and other questionable “art” funded by government grants. We would rather know that our taxes are providing body armor or a Humvee for soldiers in Iraq than to give rabid liberal journalists like Bill Moyers, but no conservatives, free air time and a national audience on PBS, a government funded television network that reaches every home in America.

Thus a specific tax of two to fifteen percent depending on income levels to support a war (not a surcharge) is not an unreasonable solution as long as congress agrees to fund all other government operations within the existing tax brackets. Thus no citizen's taxes would rise above the thirty percent bracket where most already find themselves mired.

A better proposal would be to establish a specific war tax of two to fifteen percent levied only in war time working in tandem with a ten percent flat tax. In that scenario, the wealthiest citizens would pay no more than twenty-five percent even in war time, and the congress would be forced to do what we all do when money is tight: prioritize and spend only for absolute necessities.

A specific war tax, in combination with the elimination of non-essential government programs, would serve several fundamentally important purposes:

1. Provide a vehicle for funding war needs without increasing taxes.

2. Establish national ownership of a war. If congress levied a war tax, there would be no talk of “Bush’s war,” or “Rumsfeld’s war,” or any specific executive’s war. It would be OUR war and all levels of government and citizenry would have a vested interest in its success.

3. Ensure that war funds cannot be used for non-military expenditures or held hostage by earmarks and pork-barrel projects currently attached to war spending bills.

4. Allow Americans to see precisely what a certain percentage of their income tax is used for. Currently, government coffers are a catch-all followed by a spending free-for-all. No one in the federal government can sit down with a taxpayer and demonstrate what his or her taxes actually paid for. Even Social Security taxes are hijacked and spent for a host of projects unrelated to Social Security. A war tax could be the only tax fund that cannot be used for anything other than its intended purpose. At the conclusion of a war, the specific tax established to fund it would expire and tax refunds could be issued. That is, after all, what should happen when taxpayers loan their money to the government for a specific purpose and the purpose is achieved. Congress would not be allowed to keep that money for a future war, as that form of preparation would already be included in established defense budgets.

5. Teach congress how to make do with the money it receives rather than spending future funds based on projected revenue, even for wars.

Obey’s proposal, if altered to remove its liberal fixation on creating new taxes, appears to have merit and is worthy of serious discussion. While Obey himself may have floated the idea simply to make a point or take a political swipe at President Bush and even some Democratic colleagues who have backed away from cutting off funding for the Iraq War, the concept of a war tax is neither new nor trivial.

Rather than narrowly attacking the allegedly exorbitant costs of the Iraq War and suggesting new taxes to pay for it, Obey and his colleagues should broaden their attack to include wasteful and unconstitutional programs and departments that could be eliminated. That is, if they are as genuinely interested in fiscal responsibility as they claim to be.

Their concern for the finacial burdens placed on taxpayers by the Iraq War would seem much more sincere if it were coupled with a consistent effort to relieve taxpayer burdens by reducing the size and scope of federal government programs and their insatiable budgetary demands.

Technorati Tags:
David Obey, War Tax, Flat Tax, Iraq War Funding, Government Budgets, Income Tax, Raising Taxes

Obama’s Ship of State Sinks in Shallow Waters

Today, Barack Obama makes it official: his overall strategy for achieving world peace is to travel the globe and beg dictators, tyrants, and democracies alike, “Can’t we all just get along?” As a potential a captain of our ship of state, perhaps we should expect more from Obama, but he continues to demonstrate that he is anything but a seasoned foreign policy sailor.

That anyone would take Obama seriously when he speaks on foreign policy issues is disturbing enough, but more troubling is that Obama appears to take himself seriously and may actually believe the views he espouses. In a speech at DePaul University today, Obama will make an outrageous claim for which voters, liberal or conservative, should demand clarification or retraction.

Obama’s speech, as reported by the New York Times, sets forth his alleged goal to eliminate all of the world’s nuclear weapons. While such a goal in itself merely places Obama in the pantheon of liberal pie-in-the-sky dreamers, it was one of his stated reasons for why the United States should take the lead in eliminating its own weapons that caught our attention.

According to a preview of the speech provided to the Times by Obama’s aides, Obama will tell DePaul students and faculty that “the United States should greatly reduce its stockpiles to lower the threat of nuclear terrorism." This statement is problematic for Obama regardless of how one interprets it. Either Obama believes that the world is somehow threatened by a possibility of America using its nuclear weapons to carry out terrorist attacks, or he believes that terrorists are more likely to seek nuclear weapons to use against America simply because we possess such weapons.

That's a pretty ominous iceberg in your foreign policy waters, Captain Obama.

The obvious extension of that lamentable logic is that if America would purge itself of nuclear weapons, radical Islamic terrorists would stop seeking the most powerful weapon they can find to destroy America. If Obama truly believes this, then one must also assume by his logic that if Israel were to publicly acknowledge its nuclear arsenal and likewise publicly destroy it, then radical Islamic terrorists across the globe would halt their quest to acquire nuclear weapons and cease preaching the destruction of the Jewish state.

Obama’s foreign policy as it applies to nuclear weapons is simple and easily recognizable: as with all world conflict, somehow, in some way, America is to blame: the world is stockpiling nuclear weapons because we invented them; the world must arm itself to the teeth with nuclear weapons because we have a large number of them and, gasp, we used them twice to end a war; the world’s terrorists would not be seeking nuclear weapons to further their goals if we would just disavow such weapons as dangerous and stop making them; if we are ever victimized by a terrorist nuclear detonation, it will be our own fault for fueling the world’s need for the ultimate weapon to defend itself from America’s dangerous stockpiles.

The “blame America first” theme is rampant among the candidates for the Democratic nomination in 2008. Every world crisis or the response to it is America’s fault. We intervened when we should have restrained ourselves, or we failed to intervene when we should have, or we failed to intervene quickly enough, or when we intervened we did too little or too much. The candidates, Obama in particular, fail to recognize that as powerful as America is, it is not and cannot be directly or indirectly responsible for every facet of international politics or conflict, including nuclear weapons development and arms races between nations.

Certainly we should seek to assure that nations with nuclear weapons are accounting for them, storing them safely, and understand the consequences for attempting to use them for offensive purposes. One does not negotiate such arrangements from a position of weakness or worse, disarmament.

The world is not in more danger of nuclear terrorism because America has large stockpiles of nuclear weapons. To make such a statement was irresponsible and naïve. To conclude that terrorists will stop seeking nuclear devices of their own to use against America was naïve and dangerous. Nation states we have competed with in this arena will not be talked out of their best technologies. Stubborn and sly world leaders such as Putin, Kim Jong-Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Pervez Musharraf, and a host of others must be salivating at the prospect of potentially competing in the international policy arena with the transparent Obama, who appears to think that if he can just sit down and use his charm and charisma on world leaders, they will agree to disarm themselves of the ultimate deterrent from attack. He may as well ask them to give up radar and satellites as well since they should have no fear of any incoming attacks in his Utopian fantasy world.

The portion of Obama’s DePaul speech that best illustrated how unlikely he will be to sail the ship of state through his foreign policy shallowness was his description of how he would deal with Iran:

In his speech, according to a campaign briefing paper, Mr. Obama also will call for using a combination of diplomacy and pressure to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to eliminate North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs. Aides did not say what Mr. Obama intended to do if diplomacy and sanctions failed.

The last sentence sums it up nicely. Obama’s entire foreign policy strategy is to talk and keep talking, because he appears unable or unwilling to reassure the American people that he would act to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of any radical Islamic government, not merely Iran’s. Perhaps Obama and his aides have overlooked the fact that our approach to Iran has already utilized “a combination of diplomacy and pressure,” including UN Security Council resolutions and sanctions, divestment of terror funds, frozen assets, carrier groups repositioned to the region, and overt statements from President Bush and other officials that we will act if Iran does not change course and renounce its uranium enrichment program.

That Obama plans to “call for using a combination of diplomacy and pressure” on Iran is no plan at all. Only a first term Democratic senator with no foreign policy experience would call for America to do what it is already doing and try to pass that off as a plan worthy of entrusting him with the title of Commander in Chief.

Is the advocate for a nuclear-free world willing to enforce the removal or prevention of nuclear weapons by military action? Is he willing to wage war for peace? If not, he learned nothing from the Cold War, where one nation could not reduce arms unless the other did so simultaneously. Likewise, even in Obama’s anti-nuclear utopia one nation will never dismantle its nuclear arsenal unless all other nations do so.

Rather than referring to Republican candidates as “warmongers” for their hard line stances on Iran, Obama and his fellow Democratic candidates should come to a decision and share with voters what they will do when Iran or any other nation refuses to comply with UN sanctions and resolutions already in place and is on the verge of a viable nuclear weapon. That is a question the next president will undoubtedly be forced to deal with decisively, but decisiveness requires a decision and it is clear that Obama has not made his yet.

America is not the problem. America's arsenal is not fanning any terrorist flames. Terrorists seek the most efficient and formidable means for killing mass quantities of those they hate. Obama will likely still be shaking their hands and smiling warmly at them in negotiations when a Western city disappears in a flash and a cloud.

As waders at beaches in Florida or Australia can attest, danger can lurk even in the shallowest waters. The same is true in politics. The shallowest policy positions usually portend grave danger if followed to their conclusions. Rather than arrogantly believing he can seal missile silos with his dripping charisma, Obama should demonstrate leadership by making a commitment to take all necessary actions to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons beyond those nations that already possess them. A broad smile, sanctions, and political pressure will not deter governments or terrorist organizations determined to become world powers by building fearsome weaponry.

If Obama wants to pilot the ship of state, he should develop a more substantive foreign policy and spend more time navigating in deeper waters than he has attempted to explore thus far in his campaign.

Technorati Tags:
Barack Obama, Presidential Candidates, 2008 Presidential Campaign, Foreign Policy, Nuclear Disarmament, Terrorism, Iran, Nuclear Weapons

Elderly and Homeless and Poor, Oh My!

October is upon us, and as is the case each October, the month promises to provide an assortment of ghouls, goblins, and ghastly specters that incite dread and fear in young and old alike. October brings with it not only ghosts and Jack-O-Lanterns, but also a new session of the Supreme Court. This Halloween season, politicians and liberal lawyers are making it a point to frighten three groups in particular: the elderly, the homeless, and the poor, into thinking they are in danger of losing their right to vote. Such notions are as fictional as the Headless Horseman, but that fact is easily obscured through scare tactics worthy of the most chilling spook alley.

One of the cases the court will review involves the constitutionality of Indiana's state law requiring voters to present a form of photo identification to prove their identities at local polling stations. The law was challenged by the ACLU and the Indiana Democratic Party immediately after its passage in 2005. Both moved quickly to stir up fear by declaring that the law would limit the right to vote among the elderly, the homeless or disabled, and of course the poor. The tactics used by the ACLU and the Indiana Democratic Party were simple and stolen directly from the Democratic playbook for fighting Social Security reform: scare the elderly into believing their benefits will disappear at the hands of nasty conservatives and then sit back and watch them flood Congress and newsrooms with angry letters and voice mail. The "right" to Social Security is perhaps the most cherished American "right," second only to the right to vote. Most of the time the two are related, as elections that promise to have the most impact on Social Security are also the elections with the greatest voter turnout.

The irony is that the ACLU and Democrats who oppose the voter identification laws are remarkably ignorant of the host of government services that already require that the elderly, homeless, and poor possess a form of government-issued identification before they can obtain them. A visit to a Social Security Office for any kind of service, even for registering a newborn baby for a Social Security number, requires government-issued photo identification, and in some cases multiple forms of identification.

As for the homeless, a group that one would expect not to consistently carry any form of identification, most cities issue benefit cards that require at least some identifying information. For example, Santa Monica, California, an affluent and intensely liberal city with miles of beautiful beachfront properties, is a Mecca for the homeless. Mild coastal weather and generous available services have swelled the ranks of the homeless in Santa Monica, resulting in large gatherings and lines at city buildings. Yet even liberal Santa Monica issues public service identification cards to its homeless population. This identification serves three purposes: one, it allows workers at shelters to distinguish between those who have registered with the city as homeless and those who have not; second, it allows Santa Monica's Police Department to have a means for identifying homeless residents in the event they violate laws or if they are victimized by crime themselves; third, it allows homeless residents to obtain other city services, such as libraries.

In exchange for city services, the homeless agree to register for free for a Santa Monica identification card. Those who do not wish to do so simply move on to a city without such a requirement. Yet most stay and enjoy the benefits offered to them. As Santa Monica is their official place of "residence" established by their city-issued card, they can obtain a Post Office box or similar service which further establishes that they have a local mailing address and reside in the city. At California polling locations, that combination is usually already sufficient to allow them to vote. What then is the hardship for the homeless in making the city-issued card they already willingly obtain at no cost into a free photo identification they can take to the polls?

Opponents argue that requiring the elderly, homeless, and poor to obtain government-issued photo identification presents a hardship because people in these voter classifications have difficulty navigating bureaucracy. These groups should be insulted by such a claim. The Social Security bureaucracy is considerably challenging, yet millions of elderly Americans somehow obtain the services they need despite the daunting bureaucracy. State and federal welfare programs surely contain the most complex requirement and eligibility rules known to man and endless bureaucracies to administer them, yet millions of needy families have applied for and obtained public assistance services far more challenging than filling out one form and getting a picture taken for a free voter identification card.

The low opinion liberals have of the elderly, homeless, and poor is as evident in this fight as it is in affirmative action and other liberal entitlement programs. They consistently underestimate the abilities and intellectual capacities of entire segments of the population while claiming their actions are for the "good" of these groups.

The key factor is that if something is sufficiently important to someone, he or she will find a way to navigate endless layers of bureaucracy to obtain it.

Opponents of Indiana's voter identification law would have us believe that the elderly, homeless, and poor are incapable of filling out a form for a free card, sitting for a picture, and taking the card home with them for use at their polling stations. The Indiana law even includes provisions that would exempt the disabled or those living in rest homes or assisted care facilities from the photo identification requirement. Let's be clear then that the ACLU and Indiana Democrats do not consider mobile, self-sufficient elderly residents, homeless people, or poor people smart enough to obtain a free identification card.

These opponents also set forth the claim that requiring photo identification places an undue financial burden on poor voters, because driver's licenses and state identification cards involve fees ranging in some states from $10 to $30. They raise the racial specter of the old Southern poll taxes and accuse conservatives who support the identification law of attempting to "disenfranchise" minority voters. To refute such a claim, most of the 26 states requiring photo identification at polling stations offer free voter identification cards. Where then is the financial hardship on the poor in obtaining a free card to take to the polls?

It is impossible to honestly identify any classification of legal voters who would be "disenfranchised" by being required to show photo identification. Certainly the elderly, homeless, and poor have already obtained far more complex services, all of which required some form of government-issued identification. Yet the media continues to portray voter identification as "a move that can limit participation of the elderly and poor in elections." The NAACP refers to identification requirements as "undue burdens" on voters, but offers no convincing evidence of that claim. States requiring voter identification have already made accommodations for the disabled, have made the cards available at no cost, and have made it no more difficult to obtain than any of the other public services these "disenfranchised" groups already have applied for successfully.

To claim otherwise is a political scare tactic in this season of sinister spooks.

Technorati Tags:
Indiana, Voter Photo Identification, Disenfranchisement, Supreme Court, Voter Registration Laws, Constitutionality, Entitlement Programs, Liberals