Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Voter ID

Indiana (smarter than most states) passed a law requiring voters to produce photo ID in order to vote. But liberals, and their secular fiends at the ACLU have sued over this, claiming it might keep immigrants from voting. The lower courts have all tossed this out, and it is now going before the Supreme Court.

Let me see if I have this right. The Democrats, who are trying to push forth a national ID card requirement for everyone in the country, are upset that people should actually have any need for such an ID.

At this time, it might also be worthwhile to mention to the Democrats that "immigrants" do not have the right to vote, anyway, unless they have become naturalized and are citizens - in which case, they have photo ID's, anyway. You cannot bank, fly, get into a courthouse, drive, or otherwise function in America without ID. So the Dems who claim that such a law prevents people from voting are patently absurd - and they know it!

Even more absurd was the Democrats' demand to have ballots written in different languages, so as not to discriminate against voters who do not speak English. While that may make sense to liberals who are too stupid to understand the laws, people who cannot speak English are not ALLOWED to vote - because they are not citizens. One of the REQUIREMENTS of naturalization is being able to speak English.

The reason Democrats do not want ID's for voters, but want ballots in Spanish is so they can pump millions of illegal aliens into the polling booths, to vote for Democrats. If ballots are in Spanish, and no picture ID is required, just exactly how would we prevent citizens of other countries from electing our officials? In fact, how would we keep Muslim Jihadists from electing our officials?

I have said it before, and I will say it again - for the most part (with few exceptions), Democrats are dishonest, deceitful and just plain immoral. I can remeber when the Democratic party had some (but not much) honor. But that is no longer true. Finding an honest Democrat who has integrity is getting to be as difficult as finding a "moderate" Muslim opposed to violence, and who loves America.

I have heard rumors - fostered by liberals - that there are such things, but I have yet to see even ONE "moderate" Muslim with any influence at all, standing up to be counted, and denouncing his Jihadist brothers. Not one. And with the exception of Kirsten Powers, I have a hard time finding any Democrat that has any integrity at all - one who can actually debate issues without resorting to lies, name-calling and other slimy Liberal ploys.

Personally, I think our voting laws should be even more strict - I think voters should be required to know the policies of those they are voting for. Of course, that would seriously hamper Democrats, as they do not have any policies, except killing 40 million babies in the name of Freedom of Choice (which, by the way, is NOT one of the freedoms in the Constitution), and then claiming they are the party that protects the children.

Sure. And Saddam was a benevolent ruler who treated all his citizens with respect and mercy.

No comments: