Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Supreme Court could put 2008 Democrat Elections in Jeopardy

The Supreme Court said on Tuesday it would rule on whether U.S. voters must show a government-issued photo identification at the polls, a divisive issue ahead of next year's national elections. – James Vicini
What could possibly keep Democrats from voting in the all important 2008 Presidential elections? Photo I.D.s that’s what! That’s not me talking that’s what Democrats believe.

Democrats have challenged, all the way to the United States Supreme Court, a state of Indiana requirement which requires all voters to show photo I.D.

Apparently Democrats walk around and/or drive without any photo identification and asking a Democrat for photo I.D. would cause an undue hardship on voters in the upcoming 2008 Presidential elections.

Preposterous you think! You think that I’ve gone over the deep end? No but that is exactly what lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Indiana Democratic Party will be arguing before the Supreme Court as they attempt to make a case that such a requirement on voters in American elections would cause an unfair burden on the right to vote, especially on the elderly, poor, disabled or homeless.

It’s just like the ACLU and Democrats to think about all those unprotected voting groups out there who are without identification. I’m just wondering why their most important unprotected voting group, people who are in this country illegally, are not named! (Wink, wink)

The ACLU had better discuss this with my HMO, one of the largest in my state; because they now require that I show a photo I.D. before they will administer treatment or medicine and if I have to be seen by a doctor I am now required to show I.D.

That requirement began within the last 5 years or so and being the curious sort that I am when I first noticed that my medical card was no longer enough for identification, a card which they issued, I enquired as to the reason why? A very busy clerk answered that the hospital wanted to ensure that it was me who was receiving medical care. Hmmm?!?

Now I don’t know the living arrangement of people who share my HMO but I do see and have seen quite a few elderly, disabled and people who appeared to be around the same income level as myself and in the 5 years that this requirement has been enforced I haven’t heard anyone claim that showing photo I.D. has placed an undue burden on anyone seeking medical treatment.

What’s interesting is that a party that believes that Government can reform the health care system in this country a huge undertaking no doubt and one which would require identifying the elderly, poor and homeless in this country is opposed to making sure the citizens of this country are ensured of their rights to vote and those rights are protected by showing a photo I.D. when participating in the electoral process.


  1. Anonymous7:01 AM

    In 1948, a Certain Senatorial Election in Texas was hotly contested. The villianous Coke Stevenson was about to win the election over Lyndon Johnson.

    Enter the George Parr of Duvall County. He was able to influence Election Judge Luis Salas of Alice Texas to allow a few last minute voters to vote in Precinct 13.

    At once, the countryside was scoured of those who had not voted yet, especially the Dead. Even Cattle were permitted to Vote. When the Dust Settled, Lyndon Johnson had won by 87 Votes.

    You will notice how Animals vote for the Liberal Democrat, and how Animal Rights Activists always seem to garner a few extra Votes. Why would anyone be surprised?

    May the Supreme Court exercise good sense and not permit this Voter Fraud that has been taken place at least since LBJ to continue.

  2. maybe we will have REAL elections.

    Remember, it was the liberal Democrats who cried "foul" when Bush won Florida in 2000, even though all Republicans were authenticated voters.

    Even the MSM reported that busloads of "undocumented" voters were arriving in Florida to vote..... and they weren't there to vote Republican.

  3. Anonymous5:34 PM

    You miss the point of Hillary Clinton's Campaign Strategy. She is a STEALTH CANDIDATE, just like her husband. As long as the "conventiaonal wisdom" is that she cannot win, she can! She energizes her base with the fear of her losing and enervates the opposition base by using this to lull them into passivity.

    If the possibility of her winning the Presidential Election doesn't give you at least a nightmare a week, then you are exactly the lethargic complacent comatose opposition she wants.

    Do not DREAM of holding your Presidential Election Victory Party any earlier than Noon on Wednesday, January the Twenty First, 2009, because it won't be in the bag until the Republican Candidate is safely inaugurated.