Only a racist argues against Voter ID Laws

The High Lords of the Supreme Court hath spoketh: States may not require voter ID for federal elections. In other words, states are not permitted by the federal government to ensure the legitimacy and honesty of national elections. There are a few problems with this ruling, specifically, for instance, every single aspect of it.

I don’t want to get into the State vs. Federal powers argument. Mainly because most people have no understanding of how that relationship is supposed to work, and, most importantly, how it was forever disfigured and perverted by the military force of the North during and after the War Between the States. If you want a good example of this, do a little research on how the “14 Amendment” was ratified. I have to put it in quotes because, legally, no such amendment exists. There were 37 states in the union at the time and, problematically, 16 of them voted against ratifying the 14th Amendment. Makes sense that they decided against it, considering that it specifically barred almost every single white person in the south from ever voting or holding elected office. So what did the federal government do about this? Well, they simply used military force to compel ratification literally at gunpoint, of course! It’s the American Way! Or, at least, it became the American Way. So, anyway, the point is that the Federal government has been wielding powers it seized unconstitutionally through death and violence for many, many years. Any conversation of their “legitimate” authority is forever colored by the blood of the millions they’ve murdered to claim it.

Moving on. Let’s talk about this voter ID thing. Is it racist, unfair, and totalitarian to require someone to simply prove that they are an actual American before taking part in an American election? Answer: Of course not. Is there any way to protect the integrity of the voting process, which is the foundation of our Republic, without making even the slightest attempt to weed out illegitimate foreign influences? Answer: Of course not. Are the people who stand against ID laws even interested in protecting the integrity of the process? Answer: If you don’t know the answer to that question, please stop reading. Go home. You’re drunk.

If it’s considered so damned unreasonable and cumbersome to ask someone for a driver’s license before they cast a ballot for their presidential candidate — an event that happens only once every four years — then why do we require identification for virtually EVERYTHING ELSE? The Arizona law mandated that citizens provide some form of documentary proof of citizenship before voting. Anything. License, birth certificate, utility bill, naturalization papers, passport, etc. Anything. Is there any conceivable reason why someone — given FOUR YEARS NOTICE, mind you — would be unable to produce ANY form of identification? And if requiring identification before voting constitutes discrimination and suppression, doesn’t it mean the same when we are forced to provide an ID before buying a gun, getting a job, purchasing alcohol, boarding a plane, etc? The right to own a gun is specifically guaranteed in the Constitution, unlike voting, yet most people have to undergo an identification and background check process before being granted the ability to buy one. You simply can not argue AGAINST voter ID and FOR gun background checks. I mean, you can, but you will be engaging in a willful and obvious contradiction. In fact, contemplate this: If all citizens are required to have a birth certificate, how can it be considered discriminatory to require them to produce the thing that they are required to have? If it’s unfair to mandate that I show a birth certificate, isn’t it then unfair to mandate that I have one in the first place? Here’s another quandary: Only a totally incompetent person would be unable to get their hands on their own birth certificate if given four years to do so. So when someone says that ID laws are “racist against minorities,” aren’t they really saying that minorities are generally incompetent? How disgustingly demeaning and racist. I happen to believe that ALL people of ALL races are perfectly capable of handling their affairs. Anyone who says otherwise is a drooling, cross burning, minority-hating Grand Dragon of the KKK.

At some point we have to come to terms with the seemingly counter intuitive reality that our government has set out to undermine the voting process BY opening it up to as many people as possible — including non-citizens. They aren’t interested in stopping anyone from voting. There is only a small minority of intelligent, well informed, liberty loving citizens, and our numbers are dwindling daily. The government fears us. They don’t fear the ignorant sheep and the selfish parasites. They don’t fear those who will only vote for politicians who promise them free things. They don’t fear those who vote based on soundbites they hear on cable news. They don’t fear non-citizens who participate illegally in the political process of a nation to which they have no allegiance. They love those types. They need those types. They are easy to manipulate, easy to bribe and easy to coerce. We, however, are not. But they can’t stop us from voting (yet) so instead they attempt to drown out our voices with the legions of the Ignorant, Illegitimate, and Idiotic. So when you hear a politician clamoring about increasing “participation” in the electoral process, know that it’s precisely participation that they fear. Your participation. That’s the whole point of all of this.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Only a racist argues against Voter ID Laws

  1. Mr. F says:

    Ignorant, Illegitimate, and Idiotic. Classic. Unfortunately, voter ID laws will only work to prevent one of the three. An important one, but a small minority nonetheless. We need to come to grips with the fact that we, as the small patriotic minority, are hopelessly outnumbered, and plan for the future that we, as intelligent humans, understand to be the logical outcome of current trends. The zombie apocalypse is upon us, except we’re not allowed to kill them because they are *technically* still alive, from the neck down. Alas.

  2. John Doman says:

    I was with you up to the point when you went off on the CIVIL war. You know, the war where the illegal and immoral rebellion of the states touting the non-existant “right to secede,” motivated by the evil of slavery, was defeated by the legitimate U.S. Government.

    • G. Jones says:

      This is simply not true. Every state has the right to leave. Why else would they need to petition to join? If I am wrong and you can prove it please do so.

    • monanessa says:

      Wrong. Every state in this country has the right to leave. If you must petition to join, can’t you also petition to leave?? If you can find proof in the constitution I am wrong I will admit it. Also, some argue that the civil war was less about slavery (because Lincoln was a professed racist and supporter of slavery) and more about keep the union together. IF that is truly the case than the civil war was definitely illegitimate.

      Also, this blog is a bunch of rubbish. What if you live in poverty and can’t afford a drivers license? That is just one of many reasons why I disagree with this post. Also, there are realities and racism. They are different. It is a statistic that minorities are more likely to live in poverty or in prison, why? They are treated unfairly in the US system.

Comments are closed.