Ellison Was A Snake When We Met Him...
Vote Fraud: Democrats' Meal Ticket
Claiming that to require photo IDs to vote in federal elections would disenfranchise minorities, the poor, women, elderly and young people, Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., with the support of John Conyers, D-Mich., has introduced legislation in the House making any such requirements illegal. He asserts that "while photo IDs seem harmless, they are in fact the modern-day poll tax."
In dissecting his idiocy, let's start with what the poll tax was. It was a "head" tax, i.e., a per capita tax of a uniform, fixed amount per individual (as opposed to a percentage of income). They were important revenue sources for many governments well into the 19th century, dating from ancient times.
What they became were instruments of payment that were required for voting in no less than 11 Southern states, and were designed to disenfranchise blacks, Native Americans and whites of non-British descent. They were a Machiavellian tool to eliminate many and, as such, served to circumvent the 15th Amendment.
The 24th Amendment, ratified in 1964, made such pre-conditions for voting illegal. The 24th Amendment did not prohibit requiring non-forgeable identification as proof that the voter: a) was voting in the right precinct, ward, etc.; b) was in fact who they represented themselves to be; and c) was casting only one vote.
The obvious question that begs answering is, why would a congressman of the United States, who was elected to protect, uphold and ensure the rights of the citizenry under the Constitution of the United States, attempt to undermine same?
The answer, of course, is that his actions are nothing more than a transpicuous attempt to abrogate voting regulations by a radical liberal of the Democrat Party – which has a long and distinguished history of doing just that. (Sarcasm intended.)
As John Fund noted in his book, "Voting irregularities have a long pedigree in America, stretching back to the founding of the nation" ("Stealing America: How Voter Fraud Threatens our Democracy") – whether it was the "pistol packing Texas sheriffs who helped stuff ballot box 13, [thus] stealing a U.S. Senate seat and setting Lyndon Johnson on his road to the White House" in 1948, or whether it was the Chicago Democrat voter fraud in the 1960 presidential election, when they were able to out fraud the downstate Republicans.
In a zeitgeist where you need photo ID to cash a check, rent videos, board a plane, buy an auto or a home, or to even get life insurance – it is incredulous for Ellison to claim that requiring documentation (photo or otherwise) to vote is unfair. I was asked for photo ID at a pet food store not long ago, because my credit card was unsigned. I had to present photo ID at an out-of-state branch of my bank. A friend had to present photo ID to have his prescription filled.
Another friend, in order to receive a free breakfast burrito on his birthday, from Moe's, had to provide a valid driver's license as proof of age. Photo ID is required on Capitol Hill. Why isn't Ellison condemning the aforementioned as evidence of disenfranchisement? It is because his legislation is nothing more than a sham and a charade.
In reality, Ellison and those supporting his proposed legislation do not give a rat's tail about voter disenfranchisement – they certainly do not care about protecting the integrity of our election process. They are concerned only with retaining power and enjoying the gravy train that comes with it.
He is positioning arguments should the 2008 elections not go liberaldom's way. His legislation is also designed to provide easier access for the 20-plus million illegal aliens in the country to undermine and influence the election outcome. It is an acknowledged fact that most voter fraud occurs in the inner cities – and today the greatest concentration of illegals is found in these gulags of crime and blight.
As Fund documented, "A Rasmussen Poll [found] that 82 percent of Americans, including 75 percent of Democrats, believe that people should be required to show a driver's license or some other form of photo ID before they are allowed to vote."
In his book, Fund makes another point worth referencing. He writes that "a former Democrat congressman" told him: "When many Republicans lose an election, they go back into what they call the private sector. When many Democrats lose an election, they lose power and money.
They need to eat, and people will do an awful lot in order to eat."
In their depraved thirst for power Ellison, et al., are willing to sink to whatever depths they deem necessary – even those that will subject our system of electing governmental figures to unimaginable fraud and corruption.