An ID to Vote is Racist?

by

       M. Richard Maxson

      The federal laws regarding how a citizen is allowed to vote guarantee fraud. The existing federal registration form doesn't require proof of citizenship, only that new voters sign a statement declaring their citizenship.That would work out great in a society where no one lies. I have yet to find that society. As sane state after state recognize this fact and attempt to put in place guidelines to protect the integrity of the vote, the federal government quashes these attempts as to facilitate the fraud. Recently Kansas and Arizona passed new voter-ID legislation requiring new voters to provide a birth certificate, a passport or other documentation to prove their citizenship. But the U.S. Election Assistance Commission rejected requests from these two states for help in changing federal election registration. Under our current statutes the government will take your "word" for it that you are a citizen. That also works out great if everyone in the country is a citizen.  

      The powers that rule, spearheaded by the Democratic Socialists, howl if any attempt is made to restore some sanity to the election process as the majority of voter fraud that has been prosecuted were almost exclusively of their party. Forty-Six states have prosecuted cases of voter fraud since 2000. Yet,  some horrendously naive people take these leftists at their word that they believe voter fraud is "rare" Some people also take Democrats at their word that they believe initiatives for voter-ID laws are being driven by "racist, evil,"conservatives who want to suppress minority turnout in elections. This is the type of maliciously twisted thinking that helps drive their party. Democrats need look no further than their own consistent efforts to suppress the military vote. I've never met a conservative who thinks that way. What they want is to make sure the election process is fair, that only people who are eligible to vote are allowed to vote and vote just once.

      The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of voter ID in a 6-3 decision in 2008. Since that time, 34 states have adopted some form of ID laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures and these laws are constantly under attack by the Leftists. The logic behind laws requiring voters to provide a government-issued photo identification card is simple and seductive: If you need to show an ID to board a plane, open a bank account, get public aid or do any number of other things, it only makes sense to do the same before casting a ballot. There really is no barrier for people, particularly in a society where people need photo identification for just about everything else, including checking out a book from the library ... it's a reasonable requirement. How can one even  function in 21st-century America without valid proof of identity?

      For those who agree with the Leftist Democrats who still claim it is racist to require a person of color to show an ID, I would like to direct your attention to the graphic below. This is the "Do's and Dont's for Marchers" issued by the Nation Association for the Advancement of Colored People. I would like to direct your attention to #9 on the list.

A "Free" Press and "Fair" Elections?

by

       M. Richard Maxson

      The medias influence on our elections cannot be underestimated. We have seen in the immediate past how they can "push" the vote in the direction of the favored candidate. They have brain-washed most Americans believe that the Republican party is the party of the rich and they control the process. The truth is that quite the opposite is true. The five top political donors – Michael Bloomberg, Warren Buffett, Pierre Omidyar, Tom Steyer and George Soros’s own son, Jonathan – are major funders of the left. Together, they have contributed at least $2.7 billion since 2000 to groups pushing abortion, gun control, climate change alarmism and liberal candidates.

     That’s not how major media depicted them. Broadcast networks have portrayed billionaire hedge fund manager Tom Steyer  an “everyman.” When former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg promised to devote $50 million to limit American gun rights, the networks praised his efforts as “grassroots.” They are hardly everyman or grassroots as these Leftist billionaires control most of what we see and hear in our media. Collectively they either supported or owned 88 separate media outlets. Those organizations had a combined print circulation of 3.6 million and a digital circulation several times larger.

      George Soros and his allies learned long ago that those who control the media control the national

conversation. Buffett made headlines, in more ways than one, when he began buying up 75 small and mid-sized newspapers throughout the country. Bloomberg and Omidyar also own small media empires in their own right, while Steyer and the younger Soros have poured millions into liberal media outlets. More than half of those outlets, 46 in all, were in the crucial election swing states of Florida, North Carolina, Iowa and Virginia.

      Destroying the opposition candidates in the media begins the minute they are identified as possible nominees. In the coming election of 2016 the first shots have already been fired from the Left. It started with the microscopic look at Governor Christy as he was identified as the front runner of the opposition. The next target was Governor Perry of Texas. Let us take a closer look at this latest attack and where it came from, and who is funding it, and, of course, the slanted news coverage.

       The moment Perry was indicted on two flimsy counts by a Travis County, Texas grand jury on August 15 through the morning of August 20, the Big Three broadcast networks – ABC, CBS, and NBC –  ran 24 stories totaling 38 minutes and 34 seconds across their morning and evening broadcasts. In all that coverage, not one single story mentioned that the group responsible for filing the complaint against Perry in June, Texans for Public Justice (TPJ), is part of a “progressive” coalition that has received $500,000 in funding from prolific left-wing billionaire George Soros.

      Any mention of Soros-funded TPJ is almost as difficult to find. Of the Big Three, only ABC named the organization during it’s "World News" broadcast and made no mention of the Soros connection. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow praised the group and on CNN’s "New Day," correspondent Peter Hamby referred to TPJ only as “a left-leaning watchdog group.” The next day it was referred to as " a non-partisan watchdog group but some consider Texans for Public Justice to be a left-leaning group."

      It’s a clear effort to undermine and circumvent the political process and yet the media refuse to divulge Soros' role. Not one reporter, on any program, could find the time to report this as part of the Perry story – never mind this being its own story? This is deliberate censorship. The media’s double standard in covering a story such as this misleads and misinforms the very public it claims to serve. In this case, the media have gone beyond mere bias and are complicit in the Soros machine’s scheme to take down  conservative leaders and make elections in this country one-sided affairs.

The Religion That's Not

by

       M. Richard Maxson


      When is a religion not a religion?  What is the definition? Can it be called a religion because the followers say it is and we don't want to offend them. What if  it's really a murderous cult hiding under the banner of religion that glorifies the worst in mankind and dictates that it is all done in the name of God. There is a problem within Islam, and we have to put it on the table and be honest about it. There is no true religion on earth that practices:

• Death to all who oppose or refuse to convert
• Genital mutilation of all females over the age of 9
• Murder (honor killings)
• Pedophilia
• Maiming
• Incest
• Whipping, stoning to death, and beheading

       This, and other governments, out of fear or complacency, have  continued a campaign of lies designed to subvert our understanding of how Islam, in fact, has everything to do with beheadings and other violence both in the Islamic world and in the West. Widespread, politics and mass media driven brainwashing is nothing new. The world's leaders have been relentlessly herding us in for over a decade, insisting against all reason, against all sacred Islamic texts, that "Islam is peace."

      The problematic strain within Islam is not the province of a few extremists. It has at its heart a view of religion that is not compatible with pluralistic, liberal and open-minded societies. At the extreme end of the spectrum are terrorists, but the worldview goes deeper and wider than it is comfortable for us to admit. So by and large, we don't admit it. Our presidents and secretaries of state and generals and pundits keep hammering home the big lie that Islam has nothing to do with jihad, that this so called religion of conquest is a "religion of peace,"
     
      They can't see themselves, in the modern world, as terrorists. Their warped view of humanity is best summed up by a recent Muslim protester who yelled out, “How dare you call us terrorists! We will kill you! This is Islam! There are no repudiation of Islamic terror  found in Muslim circles for at least two reasons: 1) Muslim leaders do not universally repudiate these acts, since many consider this to be a valid expression of jihad. 2) In many cases, those Muslims who want to speak out will not for fear of their lives. What religion makes it's adherents fear for their lives?
     
      No one would argue that there are multiplied millions of Muslims, perhaps several hundred million Muslims, who are peace loving, who abhor violence in the name of Islam, and who are repulsed by the actions of their peers. The question is whether these Muslims are being true to the core values of their religion. They are not.
   
       Islam's teachings are immutable; the values promoted by the Koran and other Islamic scriptures are today what they have always been and always will be. The backwardness, repression, and violent incitement against non-Muslims that hold sway in much of the contemporary Muslim world don't reflect a particularly harsh and unenlightened interpretation of Islam — they are Islam.