Jun
29
Voter ID and the November Election
There is no contention over the requirement of people in the United States to present their ID when purchasing alcohol, using their health insurance, or buying Sudafed. If this is the case, why is there controversy over the requirement of presenting one’s ID when voting? To the Democrats in office, there is a surprising amount of opposition to a simple issue. This issue really attracted me when I saw the youtube video of an anonymous man effortlessly acquiring the voting ballet of Attorney General Eric Holder without any identification. How many more of these videos need to be made to uncover the lies of the Democrats claiming that voter ID is not an issue in the United States? If the left is so sure that they are the voice of reason in American politics, then why are they so hysterical at the idea of eliminating the threat of voter fraud? The argument that voter ID is not an issue is absurd. I would be interested to see the impact that eliminating an ID requirement for alcohol would have on college towns across the country-but not really- because the consequence would be obvious.
The requirement to show an ID on Election Day seems very reasonable. To be eligible to vote, one must be a LEGAL citizen of the United States, at least 18 years old, and not a convicted felon. That being said, there are literally millions of people in the United States not eligible to vote. There is one key demographic that the democrats need to come out, and that is the demographic of illegal immigrants. Enforcing the voting laws of the United States would preclude this group from voting. This would impact the Obama campaign dramatically, as many of the crucial swing states (i.e FL, NC, VA) are likely to have high concentrations of illegal immigrants. In order to empower this group up to come out and vote, Obama has signed his latest executive order banning the deportation of young illegal immigrants. When Republicans came in opposition to this unlawful order, Obama and the mainstream media can invoked a sense of urgency in this group of ineligible voters. The mainstream media made the decision for illegal immigrants obvious: vote for Obama to stay in the United States. Anyone who thinks that illegal immigrants cannot realistically vote in these elections, think again. When 3% of the voter registrants are not US citizens, there is a legitimate issue at hand that needs policy intervention, especially when many crucial elections come within 3%.
Those who claim that these illegal voters don’t make a difference are completely off base. Look at the congressional election with Al Franken, when he won by a little over 200 votes. After a hand count of all the votes, many of these ballots were ambiguous or fraudulent and could not be counted. Is this uncertainty in the authenticity of an election what countless men and women have died to defend? Look at the 2000 elections for that matter, when George Bush won the election by 537 votes in Florida. In fact, Florida was one of 12 states in which the margin of victory was less than 5%. There is nothing politically motivated about ensuring that the legal voters of the United States are the ones electing our President, not illegal immigrants, convicts, Mickey Mouse, Goofy, or Donald Duck (Thank you to Acorn and your well documented history of voter fraud).
It is interesting that the media hysterically covers the issue of campaign funding in quantifying the integrity of a Presidential campaign when voter fraud could be directly infringing upon democracy. If any American citizen does not have access to appropriate identification, it is valid for the government to provide reasonable access to that identification. Every legal American citizen should have some valid form of identification regardless. This should be a priority for the federal policy agenda before November so that the validity of one of the most important elections in our lifetime can be counted on.
Loading ...