Corruption of the Dead
Fraud at the polling station is destroying our Republic more surely than any outside enemy:
Fraudsters (and by that I mean Democrats) have been exploiting our wide-open, honor-based voting system for decades. It is long past time this was brought to a halt.
The Dems have been screaming and muddying the waters every time the issue of voter I.D. is brought up, because fraud is how they manage to win a significant percentage of their "elections." I'd hazard a guess that if every last state were to pass a positive identification law prior to November, the Dems would lose the Senate by five (or more) seats. They will fight like cornered rats to keep that from happening, which means we have to fight even harder.
This is an "activist" cause conservatives should get behind. If your state doesn't already have a positive voter I.D. system in place, contact your local representative and encourage him to introduce a bill. This is a battle we can win, and it is a very important one. Life may not be fair, but the voting system goddamned well should be.
Current voter-registration systems are flawed, with huge numbers of dead or disqualified voters still on the rolls. And, since voter-ID enforcement is poor, in many places a person can simply claim to be one of those people and vote in their name with no one the wiser.
You might call our system “Third World,” but that would be an insult to the Third World. As Fund and von Spakovsky note, to register to vote in Mexico a voter must provide a photo, a signature and a thumbprint. The Mexican voter-registration card includes holographic security, a magnetic code and a serial number. Before voting, voters have to show the card and have the thumbprints matched by a scanner.
In the United States, meanwhile, only 17 states even require identification in order to vote. Holder & Co., claim that requiring photo ID would be racist, because getting a driver’s license, etc., costs money. This claim has consistently been rejected by courts, and with good reason: If requiring photo ID to vote is racist, then what about requiring photo ID to exercise other constitutional rights, like buying a gun?
Of course, the real objection to requiring voter ID isn’t based in civil rights, but in civil wrongs. With elections often decided by narrow margins, the ability to produce a few thousand more ballots can often swing the results. (In Minnesota’s 2008 disputed US Senate election, won by Al Franken — who proceeded to cast the deciding vote in favor of ObamaCare — the margin of victory was 312, but it turned out that 1,099 votes were cast by felons who were ineligible to vote. Many of them have gone to jail, but Franken has remained in the Senate).
Fraudsters (and by that I mean Democrats) have been exploiting our wide-open, honor-based voting system for decades. It is long past time this was brought to a halt.
The Dems have been screaming and muddying the waters every time the issue of voter I.D. is brought up, because fraud is how they manage to win a significant percentage of their "elections." I'd hazard a guess that if every last state were to pass a positive identification law prior to November, the Dems would lose the Senate by five (or more) seats. They will fight like cornered rats to keep that from happening, which means we have to fight even harder.
This is an "activist" cause conservatives should get behind. If your state doesn't already have a positive voter I.D. system in place, contact your local representative and encourage him to introduce a bill. This is a battle we can win, and it is a very important one. Life may not be fair, but the voting system goddamned well should be.
3 Comments:
Not only do we need a system that prevents voter fraud, but I think we need to re-evaluate who is allowed to vote. For example, over 40% of the population pays no income tax or even receives a net return. IMHO, these people should not be allowed to vote in national elections. They have a vested interest in voting for the party that promises the most financial benefits, a clear example of vote buying. If someone fails to provide for themselves, why should they allowed to influence decisions that affect those of us who are self-sufficient?
Of course, the "liberals" would scream about discrimination, racism, etc. What they don't seem to understand is that success in a free market based society is based on ability, not skin color. Maybe if we stopped letting the "takers" vote to control the "makers", we might actually have a free society again.
I have to agree with MB. I have long been an advocate of restricting the vote to those who actually pay taxes.Those who are consumers of government benefits are always going to vote for whoever promises more goodies.
As I recall, Aristotle said that democracy dies when the public figure out how to vote themselves largess from the public treasury. Which is exactly what we have here.
Post a Comment
<< Home