Twitter and email info

Friday, November 4, 2016

Isn't the integrity of our political system worth a voter identification requirement?

During my life, and not just during my career with the CIA, I have lived in a variety of different countries.  I was basically raised in Europe, and as soon as I graduated from college, I accepted a job in Africa.  Exposure to so many different cultures has been a tremendous blessing.  The languages that I picked up have proven useful time and time again.  As a Federal Agent working on the border, I became very familiar with Mexico and its history of political instability.  Once I joined the Agency, I had the opportunity to visit a number of third-world countries, including Iraq, Zimbabwe, Jordan, Nigeria, and Kenya.  I truly enjoyed experiencing life as it is lived in other countries, and I'm pleased to say that the great majority of people I encountered were happy, kind and generous.  I experienced true humility every time someone who had next to nothing invited me to share what little they had.

I often found myself feeling very frustrated that so many people, hundreds of millions, from different religious backgrounds and speaking different languages, all were caught in the same prison of political corruption.  A quick glance through a few history books indicates that almost every poor nation in the world at one time or another, has had an opportunity to experience an election based on the principles of representative democracy.  But electoral fraud in the third-world is almost as common as poverty.  I recall countless times when (with a bit of pride) I would think to myself, "thank goodness we don't have to worry about election fraud back home".  It's true that the political history of the United States includes LBJ getting elected to the Senate with a ballot box full of dead people, and John F. Kennedy benefitted from some questionable votes in his razor-thin victory over Richard Nixon in the 1960 presidential election.  But these examples are very much the exception.

The 2012 election between Republican Mitt Romney and the incumbent Democrat Barack Obama, made me realize that the United States is no longer immune to voter fraud.  I recall more than a handful of instances in which Democratic precinct representatives were accused of various examples of fraud.  A few people were actually prosecuted, even though the Justice Department makes no bones about its unwillingness to investigate voter irregularities.  The 2016 presidential election ushered in a number of streamlined methods of voting, designed to encourage participation.  Unfortunately, a disturbing number of voter fraud allegations have cast a shadow on these efforts.  Accusations of ballot-box stuffing, voter substitution, and the participation of dead folks only seem to involve Democrats.  Is it a surprise that investigative filmaker James O'Keefe was able to provide a video in which Democrat election workers discussed how to commit voter fraud, and even went so far and to provide examples of how new volunteers are taught methods of voter substitution and ballot box stuffing?

Because of the documented episodes of voter fraud in 2012, a number of states passed laws requiring all voters to present valid identification.  Immediately, the Democrats, cried foul, claiming that racist Republicans were attempting to intimidate minority voters.  I was stunned by this development.  Am I wrong to think that we should do whatever we can to protect the integrity of our electoral process?  You and I need identification to do just about anythimg today, from driving a car and cashing a check, to picking up a prescription for toe fungus.  What is so intimidating about showing identification before voting?  From my perspective, it's very simple.  Anyone opposed to the idea of requiring I.D. before voting, is intent on committing fraud.  I'm sad to say that so far, the courts have sided with the Democrats.  Texas was the most recent state that was obliged to scrap its voter I.D. law because of a ruling by a Federal Court.

The effort to keep the voting process free of personal verification is part and parcel to the Democrat's intent to move the United States closer to becoming a one-party state.  If Hillary Clinton is elected President on November 8, she promises to sign amnesty legislation that will almost immediately provide twenty million foreign nationals with U.S. citizenship.  The great majority of the twenty million are ethnic Hispanics from Mexico and Central America, so you can bet that once their citizenship is in place, they will be voting Democrat.  Since the last few presidential elections have been decided by seven million votes or less, you can understand the importance of blocking amnesty in its present form.  I don't fathom why it's necessary to adjust the twenty million illegal aliens directly to citizenship.  Wouldn't it make more sense to process these individuals for Permanent Resident status first, so they could pay taxes, register their kids for school, and not panic each time they encounter a Police Officer?  They would then have the option of completing the Nationalization process, just like other Permanent Residents.  The idea of fast-tracking these imdividuals, whose entire presence in our country is predicated on breaking our laws, should be repugnent.  At the least its terribly unfair to all the persons who have applied legally, and are sitting in Mexico City, Tegucigalpa, San Salvador, Lagos and New Delhi, patiently waiting for their name to be called.

The Democrats and Hillary Clinton go off the deep end when this change in the proposal is mentioned, and its easy to understand why.  For the Democratic Party, this entire issue is about adding a game-changing number of new voters to the list of registered Democrats.  Don't fall for the crocodile tears and speeches about families being separated.  Sure, there have been some isolated instances when family members "sin documentos" have been returned to Mexico, but it's only the politics of distraction, my friends.  This is about votes and political power; nothing more, nothing less.

No comments:

Post a Comment