Nothing Left, to Say...

Where We Shed Light on the Right, We respect governance by the 2C's, Common Sense and the Constitution, where we never have anything say...We are also the home of the (almost) weekly Rant and Recipe...

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

It appears as though some sanity might have found its way into the Supreme Court these past few years. This week the Supremes ruled that an Indiana law requiring photo identification at the polling place before a voter is allowed to cast their ballot was constitutional. With the ignorance and illogic usually manifested by lib'ruls, the plaintiffs argued that the Indiana requirement posed an undue financial hardship upon the elderly, the poor and minorities. Did I mention that Indiana identification cards are free? Even more astonishing was that three of the Justices, (who are all rumored to be law school graduates) agreed with the left's loony claims in the matter. Now some of you are asking why this is important and fortunately for you all, I'm here to tell you.

I stand behind no man in my regard for the Second Amendment. When examined in the context of our Founding Fathers' intentions, it is apparent that they favored an armed populace not only to ward off foreign enemies, but as a check on the natural tendency of government to expand beyond limitations a liberty loving people might place upon it. The Founders foresaw the potential of a tyrannical government and provided remedies. One of those, the more drastic of them, is the Second Amendment. The other remedy for government which does not represent the interests of the people is the ballot box. For most Americans, casting a ballot represents the greatest commitment they will ever make to the preservation of the Republic and they cannot conceive of the more drastic potential forseen by the Founding Fathers. Therefore it would appear as though the ballot is every bit as dangerous as a weapon if placed into the hands of the uneducated or criminal class. Since voting is obviously a grave responsibility it seems to me that before allowing someone to vote a couple of minor requirements be met. Fortunately for me, the Supreme Court of the United States would seem to agree.

You see the Supremes recently upheld an Indiana law that required voters to prove who they were by providing photo identification at the time of balloting. The democrats and their unholy agents in the ACLU howled, claiming that requiring photo ID "imposed an undue financial hardship" on women, the elderly and minorities. Naturally that would appear to be some of the democrat parties' strongest constituent groups. Let's examine that claim a little shall we. I would wager that almost everyone of you reading this possesses some type of government issued ID card. Those that do not, are probably too young to vote, too criminal to obtain a legitimate ID card or to stupid or lazy to find their way to the DMV. Of course stupid and lazy are descriptors often associated with some members of the democrat base. The claim was that a financial burden would be placed on these poor folks if they had to obtain ID. Why exactly is that? Indiana provides identification cards to all citizens free of charge. So what exactly is the financial burden? Perhaps the expense of gas to get to the DMV.

Now I'm willing to concede that the cost of gas imposes more of a financial burden each day. Of course two years ago the American people elected democrats to large majorities in both houses of Congress. With those majorities in place and the price of gas spiralling upwards, where exactly is that comprehensive energy bill Mrs. Pelosi? (D-San Francisco) Mr. Reid? (D-Nevada)...insert sound of birds chirping here....But I digress. The ACLU and their fellow travelers in the democrat party are incensed at the most minor of requirements for voting because it represents an inconvenience to their usual ability to stuff ballot boxes, deliver the votes of the dead, shanghai the homeless to a polling station and bribe them with Marlboros or to cajol muddle headed youth into a vote for a bottle of cheap busthead. One more reason the elitist democrats look down on flyover country. There's no profit in voter fraud in rural areas. We require ID to sell alcohol, to drive a car, to use our own credit cards, but to cast a ballot in defense of the Republic? Never! cry the dems, EVERYONE should have a ballot they say. Well I disagree. If you cannot be bothered obtaining ID, you probably can't be bothered to educate yourself about issues and frankly I do not want uneducated voters making determinations for me and my family. Educations is such a terrible thing to democrats, with all those facts and logic, they prefer emoting and indoctrination. No need to worry about dissent then. So everyone should vote. Even criminals. Can you imagine criminals voting for judges? Do you want some Crip gang members voting for City Council or perhaps setting drug policy for the Nation? This is what the democrats invite with their insane defense of no voter ID.

Speaking of felonies, many inner city voters are felons it would appear. Especially since the howls of protest in this case are so loud. Those democrat precincts in Philadelphia and Chicago that routinely turn out 105% of voters in each election might have to check the flow of enthusiastic voters. Perhaps by striking back at voter fraud, we might reduce the turnout. Yeah, it might only be 102% this year. Of course around these parts we all know that criminals have long been courted by the democrats. Now the democrats appear to be attempting once again to protect the interests of their base. What they don't want you to know is what particular group that is. The criminal element who routinely show up at polling places year after year, picking up their smokes and rotgut vodka on the way to betraying the Founding Fathers and their fellow citizens. You know, most legitimate Americans don't mind playing on a level field, as long as everyone plays by the same rules, what you can't trust about the left is how they always seem to have a different rulebook than everyone else.

So once again the Supreme Court has demonstrated why it is so necessary to keep a Republican in the White House. The three dissenters on the decision were Clinton appointees and a New England fraud who foisted himself on the American people pretending to be a judicial constructionist. At least with McCain, we'll have half a chance for decent Court appointees, what chance do we have with sHrillary or B. Hussein Obama?

Smilin' Paul Villa U.S. Senate 2010
cyber-Congressman, R-Reno
Proud Member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and 2 SUV Family


Post a Comment

<< Home