All the furor about the recent changes in the Georgia voting law ignores the fact that several states changed their voting laws shortly before the 2020 election to make it easier for people to vote. Here is a CBS summary of the new law. CBS’s parent company, Viacom, issues a statement condemning the law by calling for greater voter access, according to Deadline.
Pennsylvania and North Carolina extended absentee ballot deadlines for the 2020 elections, which was allowed by the US Supreme Court, according to the New York Times. Wisconsin’s laws on absentee ballots were also upheld by the Supreme Court. Changes to voting laws were also challenged in Florida, Ohio, Arizona, Tennessee, New York, California, and Georgia, according to NBC
Some changes were justified by saying that Covid restrictions required the changes. In any case, Georgia did not change its voting laws in 2021 out of the blue. It was a reaction to the changes made by many states before the 2020 election.
The criticisms of the new Georgia law focus on saying that it restricts black voting. However, the law applies equally to black and white voters. The black argument is essentially that black voters cannot possible meet the same voting standards as white voters. Blacks claim they are in worse physical shape than whites and require bottles of water and other assistance if they have to stand in line to vote. Black people claim they are unable to travel to the polls like white people and are only able to vote from home by mail. Essentially blacks claim that they cannot vote like whites because they are inferior; yet, they have spent the last hundred years claiming that they are not inferior. Which is it? Blacks need “affirmative action” to help them vote, just like in every other part of life, because they cannot compete with whites. “Oh, help me, help me! I’m black and I need help to do anything.”
Behind the mask: an explosive book about Rwanda’s president
Paul Kagame’s admirers say that as ruler of Rwanda, a once-benighted land, he is beneficent, even benevolent. Not if you believe even half of “Do Not Disturb”, a new study of his government by Michela Wrong, a journalist. Under her scrutiny, Mr Kagame has almost no redeeming features. Brought up among Tutsi exiles in Uganda, Rwanda’s neighbour to the north, in this telling he was the school sneak. He rose in the Ugandan intelligence service. Then Mr Kagame reconquered Rwanda. As a disciplinarian leader, she reports, he was known to comrades as “Pilato” (after Pontius Pilate) for overseeing punishments while washing his hands of moral responsibility. He is blasted, too, as a menace in the region. He should bear the bulk of guilt, reckons Ms Wrong, for a high death toll in civil wars initiated mainly by him in Congo. This book, full of detailed research, will enrage Mr Kagame and rattle his friends at home and abroad.
From the Economist magazine’s Espresso newsletter.
Rwanda is typically referred to in the liberal media as a democratic, progressive, law abiding country that illustrates that not all African nations are repressive dictatorships. Maybe it’s not such a good example after all.
The furor over the Confederate flag being carried by one of the invaders of the US Capitol is overblown. Many more invaders were carrying American flags and using them as weapons, compared with one individual apparently walking quietly through the halls with a Confederate flag. The man with the Confederate flag should not have been there, but it looks like his offense was considerably less than many of those with American flags. Nevertheless, the Confederate flag photo has been highlighted because commentators believe it represents some kind of evil, like a Nazi swastika. This is unjustified.
The men who fought under the Confederate flag did not kill blacks; they killed white men fighting for the Union army. Some black men fought for the Union and were killed along with their white colleagues, but that had nothing to do with their race. To imply by comparisons with Nazi paraphernalia that the Confederate flag is a symbol of genocide is simply wrong. It was a battle flag like those that troops have carried in war for thousands of years.
Some may argue that the flag became a symbol of oppression and Jim Crow segregation after the war, but this was a misuse of the flag and not a true representation of what it stands for. If you look at violence committed by the Ku Klux Klan and other racist groups, you will probably find the Christian cross used as a symbol as often as the Confederate flag. Should the cross be banned like the Confederate flag? Should the American flag be banned because the rioters in the Capitol carried it during their rampage?
The attack on the Confederate flag by liberals and Democrats has other motives, based on their own ethnic hatreds. They want to destroy Southern white people as a political force, and the Confederate flag is a good symbol for their campaign of disparagement and disenfranchisement. They have reopened the wounds of the Civil War and want to destroy the South this time around. They believe Lincoln was too soft; they think he should have been more like Hitler and decimated and enpoverished the Southern white population, so that it would never have recovered from the war. There should have been no “Reconstruction” after the war. There should have been continued destruction. They want destruction now.
The decision to refight the Civil War has been made by the liberals and Democrats. The disastrous Trump presidency was a reaction to their attack on ordinary white people across the nation, not just in the South. Biden has not been a leader in this fight like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have been. We will see if he gets dragged into it by them and their allies. Trump’s impeachment may shed some light on what lies ahead. Trump clearly urged insurrection, but it is not clear that impeachment is the remedy for what he did. It is clear that it is part of the effort to destroy those Trump supporters whom the Democrats bitterly hate.