by Big Dog on Dec 29, 2011 at 06:33 Political
I know there are folks who think that requiring an ID to vote disenfranchises many people. This is bogus and is only stated to work people up over the issue. People need an ID to do many things in this country and they should have to show an ID to vote. Yes, there are people who do not have an ID. That is a personal choice and if they want to vote they can get one. Many states that require an ID to vote offer them free to those who can’t otherwise afford them. It is not asking too much of someone to have them get an ID. If they do not want one that is their choice which means they made a choice not to be able to vote (no different than choosing not to register to vote in order to avoid jury duty).
Ironically, those very same people would stand in line for an ID were one required to get a government handout.
There has been plenty of fraud over the decades with dead people voting, people voting in person and absentee in two different states, people voting more than once and people voting in the name of someone else. There are people who fill out ballots for the elderly in nursing homes. Many people in nursing homes who are barely functional vote because someone filled out a ballot for them. This includes people who are never awake.
There is fraud and no matter how small it is it tarnishes the entire system.
We need IDs to thwart some of this so we don’t have close elections being decided when just enough ballots to give the Democrat a win suddenly appear. If they were not cast with a valid ID then they don’t count, period.
This is very important because once the election is over the courts will not do anything even if fraud is shown. Yes, if a person wins by 100 votes and is sworn in and then it is shown that 200 illegal ballots were cast for that person he will remain in office.
The judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have ruled that election fraud suspected in the 2008 presidential campaign essentially was canceled by the inauguration of Barack Obama. WND
So according to this court any election fraud was invalidated by the inauguration. This means if 5000 dead people vote for someone (Maryland and Chicago like this method) and that someone wins and takes the oath of office the election fraud is invalidated. Suppose you committed tax fraud and received a huge refund even though you were supposed to pay a lot in taxes and then suppose you spent all the money you got back. Do you think the 9th Circus Court would rule your tax fraud had been invalidated because you had already spent the money?
As an aside, there are many Democrats who would like such a ruling (Geithner, Rangel, Daschle etc)
Since most fraud is not discovered until long after the swearing in has taken place there is nothing to stop people from committing fraud because they know they will get away with it as long as it is not discovered before a person takes the oath of office.
At least with voter IDs some of the methods used to cheat will be taken away.
We needs laws allowing elections to be overturned when fraud is discovered no matter when it is discovered and we need mandatory prison terms for people who commit voter fraud.
I know, the bleeding hearts will say this will disenfranchise people.
Yep, it will disenfranchise those who cheat. Democrats won’t like that because they wrote the book on election fraud.
Never surrender, never submit.
Print This Post