Voter Eligibility- An Old Idea Whose Time Has Come

America's constitution originally limited voters to those who held property. As such, we have been taught, our Founding Fathers were needlessly restrictive and undemocratic.

Now, over two hundred years later, newly-minted drivers register to vote at shopping malls, or via ACORN, without even compelling proof of residence.

Thus, this post's subject should have given you chills. On election day, I wrote this post, which included the passage,

"In prior election years for the past decade, I recall the Wall Street Journal publishing, close to each quadrennial election date in November, an editorial written by one particular high school teacher. His point was always the same, regardless of in which year he wrote his piece: there are some Americans whom you really don't want in that polling booth.

By describing the incredibly bad sense of both American history and current world events among his charges, the editorialist reminded us of the danger of too many ill-informed and bad-thinking people voting for our governing officials.

It almost certainly puts me in a minority, but I'd actually prefer a lighter voter turnout. Both this year, and in most election years. Give me a thoughtful, if smaller core of voters determining the direction of my country, rather than a shotgun blast of newly-registered, uninformed and illogical voters swamping those who actually pay attention to the national agenda month in, month out, every year."

Back in late summer, when ACORN's involvement in multi-state voter registration fraud, and their ties to the newly-elected President's campaign were big news, my business partner and I discussed the idea of more restrictive voting laws.

I now believe it would be better for our country if two important changes were made regarding voter eligibility.

First, a set of questions be taken directly from exams by which people become naturalized US citizens, and used as a qualifier for voting. Each voter would be required to answer all 10 questions correctly, or s/he could not vote that day. Period.

If a citizen and registered voter can't pass part of the exam to become a US citizen, why, in God's name, do we want them voting in our elections?

Second, I would recommend that only people who can prove that they paid taxes to the federal government, state and/or local jurisdictions may vote in those elections.

This makes a lot of sense, and was the only restriction the Constitution ever placed on voters. Simply put, it insures that only Americans with 'skin in the game,' those who actually pay for the government, have a say in its operation.

All others, especially those who only take from, but do not pay for government services, are excluded.

It's not hard to understand why this would be a healthy thing. What's to prevent every welfare recipient for voting for whomever will give them more benefits? Nothing.

Gradually, the fewer working voters will be held hostage to those who vote without contributing economically to our society.

I know my recommendations won't make it into law. Probably ever. But they should.

I'm convinced we'd be a better, healthier Republic for these restrictions on voter eligibility.

Obama As The New Lincoln, FDR & JFK ???

Of all the political nonsense floating about recently, the most nonsensical is the Illinois rookie being compared to: Abraham Lincoln, FDR, and JFK.

I saw one article in the Wall Street Journal claiming that the President-elect fancies Lincoln as his role model.

As if.

Apparently, the big connection here is that....are you sitting down for this?......they both began their lives in poverty.

Wow. You know, they are the only two Presidents to have begun life in other than highly-privileged surroundings. Reagan, Nixon, Grant, to name a few, actually did, as well.

But for purposes of glorifying the New Messiah, let's just focus on ol' Abe, shall we?

Then we come to FDR. I've seen a picture of the magazine cover which places the Illinois freshman Senator in the chauffeured sedan, drawn and posed as FDR, complete with cigarette holder, hat and grin.

Pullllleeeeeze!

FDR had actual work experience prior to running for President. He was Secretary of the Navy, then Governor of New York.

And, no, this is not the worst economic period in American history since the Great Depression. The recession we are just entering may be as bad as the one in 1982, or even 1974, the latter fanned by the first Arab oil embargo. But we are nowhere near 25% unemployment and a drop in money supply as most of the country's banks fail.

The only way the incoming President will become like FDR is if, as promised, he rams his socialistic programs through a willing, Democratic Congress.

Court packing, anyone?

And, of course, JFK. The newly-elected President is on the younger side, attended Harvard (but not as an undergraduate- only law school), is intelligent and articulate.

But, again, he has far less experience than JFK. Kennedy had combat experience in WWII and served a few terms as a US Representative and at least one Senate term. And, even then, his legislative failures were notable. As were his foreign policy gaffes.

All of which simply goes to show how desperate Democrats and other liberals are to project their hopes onto this empty slate who's just been elected as our next President.

One thing is certain. He's not going to measure up to any of these predecessors, even if you liked what they did.

Obama By Another Name?

Have you ever known a person of Indian extraction, in America or England, with one of those long, unpronounceable names?

Long ago, one of the people working for me joked about an auto salesman whose business card read:

(Unpronounceable first name) 'Al' Gupta.

Perhaps our newly-elected President has the same issue. I mean, he, himself, introduced racism into the campaign when he charged that, to paraphrase,

'They'll try to scare you into voting for their guy. They'll say he has a funny name. And that he looks different than all those guys on our paper money.'

Thus, when a commenter on my blog mentioned "Barry O," I got a flash.

Perhaps someone should start a contest to provide the incoming President with a new, properly western first name.

Sure, Barry is okay. But, why stop there?

Why limit it to names beginning with B? Perhaps the Illinois rookie has always craved a different first name.

Mike? Sam? Alex?

That's a good one. Alex...like Alexander...the Great? Perfect for the Messianic One, isn't it?

Or maybe he should tackle all this comparison nonsense with Lincoln, and just assume his first name-

Abe.

Abraham "Abe" Barack Obama.

Abe Obama. Not lilting, but it could work.

Or, perhaps another comparison, Frank(lin)?

"Frank" Obama.

Well, you get the idea. Maybe someone will suggest dropping pretense, and go for the big one....

Jesus.

"Jesus" Barack Obama.

God help us, it could happen.

The Incredible Naivete of Obama Voters

Fox News aired a disturbing piece last week on its Hannity & Colmes program.

I can't recall the name of the producer/videographer, but the story was essentially this.

A filmmaker had selected for him, without his involvement, a group of people who had voted for the Democratic candidate for President earlier this month. This was, effectively, an exit survey.

He then provided them with a 10-question, multiple choice quiz to complete.

Among the astonishing and troubling results were that every respondent, as verified by the video clip on H&C, thought that both Congressional Houses were controlled by the Republicans!

Further, he documented the extremely toxic environment the media had created for the GOP ticket by asking the voters who, among the four candidates on the two major tickets, had an unmarried teenaged daughter.

Again, every one of the respondents appearing on the video replied the same, and that was, correctly, Sarah Palin.

It reminds me of a discussion which my business partner and I had earlier this year regarding the Constitution's original requirements for voting. Given this horrifying story, I'm going to write a post about that conversation, and what could be done to improve electoral outcomes going forward.