PAGE COLLECTIONS -- CHECK THEM OUT!

Monday, January 2, 2012

Voter ID Protects the Integrity of the Vote

Unless you favor dead people and Mickey Mouse voting in elections, you should be support voter ID. Anybody with a passport or driver's license has an ID and anyone can get a non-driver's photo ID at the DMV. There's even a website where you can click on a map for the information in your state. So why do the Democrats resist voter ID so aggressively? Because...they favor dead people and Mickey Mouse and friends voting perhaps? Obama's Justice Department is after states to halt voter ID because, let's face it, they need all those dead voters to stuff the ballot box. And consider that every illegally cast vote knocks out a legal vote. How would you feel if that vote were yours?

KNIGHT: Voter ID terrifies Democrats
Justice Department seeks to undermine our elections

9 comments:

  1. I live down in Texas and there are plenty of people voting here who are not US citizens. Most of them can't speak a word of English and yet they get registered to vote an dit is just to make sure that they and other illegals can get free tuition in our schools, qualify for welfare, government aid, etc. it's a racket. We need public officials who will take our immigration laws seriously

    ReplyDelete
  2. I work with poor people and it is often not simple to get an ID. First one has to know where one was born (county or city), then one has to have the means to get a birth certificate (even if you already have a social security card), then one has to have proof of residence usually lasting more than three months. Most state licensing bureaus do not accept a utility bill anymore. To eliminate voter fraud, there should be proof of citizenship at the registration process, not at the voting booth. The reason Republicans are so interested in requiring ID is because it would disenfranchise many poor people, who usually vote Democrat.

    ReplyDelete
  3. When our forefathers brought forth on this continent a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, they also followed the established tradition of the several states maintained since before the Revolution that required ownership of property as a condition for voting. This was to prevent rootless people who were not committed to the common good from taking disproportionate power in determining the course of public policy. As individuals worked hard and acquired property they earned the “right” to vote; it wasn’t seen as something inherent to all such as are the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Throughout the nineteenth century, however, this requirement was gradually done away with in State after State but ultimately with disastrous consequences that enabled the rise of political and social liberalism that has destroyed our nation, bringing us now to the brink of socialism. The restriction of voting to property-ownership was not seen by our founding fathers to in anyway diminish the basic equality of all men but only to entrust the common good to those who were most committed that common good and equipped to ensure it. We need to look at our socio-political heritage and reestablish, albeit in a changed format, the link between the ballot box and electoral commitment to the national welfare. In colonial times voting rights were determined by the ownership of land or chattel. While urban dwellers such as Paul Revere or John Hancock or the Americans who dumped the tea into Boston Harbor did not own the acreage of a George Washington or a Thomas Jefferson, their commitment to business gave them as keen an interest in the future of a new nation as any landed gentry. Similarly there are men and women of business today who do not own property and live in condominiums or even rented apartments but whose investment in business makes them trustworthy custodians of the common good. Clearly “property” must be defined in broad terms and not restricted to land or houses but as economic commitment to our national good. Furthermore, reestablishing property requirements of some sort, certainly not excessive but sufficient to reflect investment in the common good, would insure that those who would fraudulently invade the voting booth would clearly be eliminated. It would also make sure that we have an educated electorate who would know and understand the consequences of their vote. Reestablishing some form of property qualification for voters would not disenfranchise people because of gender, religion, or race. Unlike in the Islamic world, women can own property in our society. Moreover, property held jointly of husband and wife would make sure that women living under the authority and protection of their husbands had the vote. And unlike eighteenth and early nineteenth century America, property is no longer the prerogative of white Protestant males. Catholics and Jews certainly are represented in the middle and upper classes and there is even a strong negro middle class today. What some form of property requirement would do is to protect our society against transients of dubious citizenship and others who want to reap for themselves and their offspring the benefits of American life without making contribution to the resources that make those benefits possible . It would gut the Obamacrats of their ability to flood the voting booths of this country with those who want to introduce a socialism that would rob those of us who are people of hard work and property to pay for the health and education of those who live off the public dole or who are invading our country to share in the fruits of the hard work of those of us whose families have lived here for generations building an America for our children and grandchildren. The measure with which one contributes to the common good should be the measure to which one has voice in determining that good. This was the vision of our founding fathers and we should restore it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree with your analysis, but it will never happen because of the high percentage of minorities who would be impacted. It would be framed as racism. The irony is that elitist white liberals have created a system where they have a stake in keeping minorities ignorant and on the dole so they can depend on their votes. After all, they want some of those goodies from "Obama's stash." It would be laughable if it weren't so sad.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You agree with that analysis, Mrs. K? That's disturbing. I could go with a literacy test or proof of citizenship, but the rest of what Anon # 3 said is pretty hard core elitism. The sentence "We even have a Negro middle class" is just about the most racist and horrible thing I've ever seen written on your blog. Of course the "women living under the protection and AUTHORITY of their husband" is a close second. Shame, shame, shame.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm puzzled, Tom. You said nothing about the writer's comments that there is a strong Catholic middle class or a strong Jewish middle class. So that isn't a prejudicial statement but mentioning a strong black middle class is? Or is any statement of fact about blacks, even when positive, a racist statement? Is it racist to say there is a white middle class? How about an Irish middle class? There was a time when the Irish were little more than slaves under indentured servitude.

    And recognizing the authority and protection of husbands is biblical although it's very politically incorrect to say it. I recognize the authority of my husband as head (particularly the spiritual head) of our family. There are more problems due to men NOT acting with authority than men exercising their God-ordained authority. ("Husbands, love your wives as Christ loves the Church. He gave his life for her.") How many men today will lay down their lives for their wives and children? Many are more likely to take their little sex toys down to the abortion mill for recycling.

    There is no shame in recognizing that many black families are working hard and achieving the American dream. Nor is there any shame in recognizing the authority of husbands. I embrace those truths with joy.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sorry, I think it was more about the term 'negro' that grabbed me, not at all that they have advanced into middle class life. Where I'm from, unless you ARE a person of color, you would never use that word to describe black people.

    And I would never settle for a marriage of less than an equal partnership. The Bible is full of stuff that is no longer relevant in the world today, though people can twist it around to suit their needs.

    I could write pages on what else I find disturbing about that post, but will instead remind myself that my resolution for the year was to spend less time doing such things.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mary Ann Kreitzer, please leave out my last comment about Californian schools, and please do not post any of my comments. I think everyone already knows how bad they have gotten for various reasons,and it makes no sense for me to continue to harp on it. Sometimes I wrtie to let off steam because now they have some more terrible legislation they are trying to pass, and the battle seems just never ending, and I just need someone to listen at times. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous, I deleted your previous comment, but left this one because I think you are articulating what a lot of people feel. When the world is coming apart, people need to share their concerns and fears. Seems to me that's normal. And you can't begin to address the problems unless you acknowledge them.

    When you asked me to not publish any of your comments I scratched my head because you are posting anonymously and I can't tell which comments are yours.

    I think your experience as a teacher is valuable to share.

    ReplyDelete