Prager writes:
While dining out last week, I periodically looked up at one of the television monitors to see the score of the first game of the NBA finals. As there was no sound on to interrupt diners' conversations, the monitor was in caption mode: One could read rather than hear the words spoken. At the conclusion of the game, an announcer was interviewing a member of the victorious Miami Heat players. I saw from the captions the player saying the words "they isn't."
Closed captions display the words spoken. They don't correct for poor grammar.
All I could think was: How can a grown man in America today say "they isn't" rather than "they aren't"?
First, how is it possible for anyone to graduate an American elementary school, not to mention a high school or, most incredibly, attend college, and leave with an inability to conjugate the verb "to be"?
Second, has anyone -- a parent or another relative, a teacher, a friend, a coach -- in that player's life ever corrected his grammar?
I assume that the answer to the second question is "No."
And I assume that the answers to both questions are related: The left, which dominates our culture and educational institutions, has too often lowered standards for black Americans. Even worse, it has declared that if you are black, "they isn't" is not only not to be corrected, but many in academia have declared it an acceptable form of English, i.e., Ebonics, or Black English.
It doesn't end.
I saw "they isn't" the same week the Democrats and others on the left virtually unanimously condemned all Republican attempts in state legislatures to pass legislation requiring voters to show a photo ID. The Democrats labeled it a means of "disenfranchising" blacks. Many Democrats compared it to Jim Crow laws.
"Jim Crow, move over -- the Wisconsin Republicans have taken your place," charged Wisconsin Democratic State Sen. Bob Jauch, referring to his state's new voter ID law.
It is hard to imagine a more demeaning statement about black America than labeling demands that all voters show a photo ID anti-black.
This is easily demonstrated. Imagine if some Democratic politician had announced that demanding a photo ID at the voting booth was an attempt to keep Jewish Americans from voting. No one would understand what the person was talking about. But why not? Jews vote almost as lopsidedly Democrat as do blacks. So why weren't Jews included in liberal objections to voter ID laws?
We all know the answer. Jews are generally considered intelligent and therefore no one would assume that obtaining a photo ID was demanding too much of even poor Jews (yes, there are poor Jews). Therefore, one can only infer that the argument that demanding photo ID for voting will disenfranchise many blacks suggests that many blacks lack the capacity to obtain a photo ID.
If that is not a legitimate inference, then only one other inference is possible: The argument is made solely in order to score political points by portraying black Americans as victims of Republican racism. Of course, that argument simply takes us back to the original question: Why does requiring a photo ID to vote prevent blacks from voting?
It is, however, effective. Calling Republicans racist has worked for half a century and will not be abandoned until it is universally recognized as the libel that it is.
Read more.
Prager does an excellent job of illustrating how ridiculous, as well as offensive, it is to claim that requiring a photo ID to vote is racist.
On a related note, Democrat Party Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said that photo ID is the GOP's plan to bring back Jim Crow laws.
[I]f you go back to the year 2000, when we had an obvious disaster and - and saw that our voting process needed refinement, and we did that in the America Votes Act and made sure that we could iron out those kinks, now you have the Republicans, who want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws and literally - and very transparently - block access to the polls to voters who are more likely to vote Democratic candidates than Republican candidates. And it's nothing short of that blatant.
Talk about over the top rhetoric, from the Dem Party chairwoman no less!
It's unforgivable. Sadly, it's typical Democrat blather.
Wasserman Schultz kind of sort of slightly retracted her statement:
Jim Crow was the wrong analogy to use. But I don't regret calling attention to the efforts in a number of states with Republican dominated legislatures, including Florida, to restrict access to the ballot box for all kinds of voters, but particularly young voters, African Americans and Hispanic Americans.
That's no retraction, even though Ben Smith of Politico wants you to think it is.
Republicans and Jim Crow laws - give me a break!
Bottom line: Measures to prevent voter fraud and assure the integrity of our elections is in the best interest of every American. The only reason to object would be a desire to make it easier to cheat.
That's disenfranchisement.
I guess the Democrats are pro-disenfranchisement.
___________________
UPDATE: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board recommends PHOTO ID to prevent fraud in the FoodShare program.
People using social media such as Facebook and Twitter to buy and sell public food assistance benefits are cheating the vast majority of honest recipients who need help. State officials need to put an end to this practice - and one way to do so is to require photos on the FoodShare Quest card. Emergency cards need some level of security as well.
For some FoodShare users, this may create a hardship, especially for those who are elderly or sick. Those with greater needs should be given the ability to have a family member or friend use their card.
But right now, all anyone who uses a Quest card needs is a four-digit pin number. Those who report their cards lost or stolen and qualify for an emergency card should have to have that card verified by identification as well. Without verification, that card is as good as cash - and in the wrong hands can be sold, used for drugs or traded for alcohol.
RACISTS!
No comments:
Post a Comment