On Voter ID, Sharpton Can’t Comprehend His Own Argument

One would be hard-pressed to think of a more ignorant and borderline mentally disabled character than Al Sharpton. It’s bad enough that he talks as if he had been dealt a severe hammer-blow to the head in the days of his early infancy, but on top of that, the man’s ability to formulate a thought rivals that of beauty-pageant contestants. (Speaking of which, maybe Miss Utah is correct: maybe we do “need to try to figure out how to create education better.”)

Monday, the Supreme Court struck down Arizona’s 2004 law, the Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act, or Prop 200, which required mainly that individuals show proof of citizenship in order to register to vote, and that a photo ID be presented at the voting booth. It is the Court’s nullification of this law that has Mr. Sharpton—excuse me—”Reverend” Sharpton proclaiming “Justice Has Prevailed“ in an op-ed for The Huffington Post.

“When the Voting Rights Act of 1965 became law,” writes Sharpton, “it solidified every American citizen’s right to vote and participate in the electoral process.”

That’s very good of Al, knowing the basics of the VRA. But the two words he seems to be unaware that he wrote are “American citizen’s.” Sharpton, in that sentence, the third sentence into his piece, cancels the entire argument upon which his protestations are based. The VRA did not solidify every person’s right to vote; it solidified every American citizen’s right to vote, just as Sharpton correctly notes.

Race is the religion the Reverend reveres, like so many others of his political persuasion. Like those others, he believes, or at least pretends to believe in order to keep the troubles, that requiring a US citizen to prove he is a US citizen before he engages in something only US citizens are permitted to do is—wait for it—racist.

The argument is entirely emotions-based; there is no logic to it. Let’s use an analogy: if the law requires that one must be at least 16 years old in order to get a driver’s license (requires that one must be a citizen in order to vote, as in the VRA), it is only logical for the DMV (the voting booth) to require proof of the potential driver’s age (the potential voter’s US citizenship).

As I’m so fond to point out, logic is not a strong suit of the left, and Sharpton is certainly no exception. The primary goal of American voting laws must be to retain the integrity of our voting process. When people who couldn’t even bother themselves to respect our laws when coming here can have a say in how the country can be run, then the voting process is corrupt and there is as little justice in it as there is brain matter in Sharpton’s cranium.