Could Jesus Vote in 2012?

Many states have enacted a law to require a photo ID before you can vote. Republicans say a photo ID prevents voter fraud, but statistics show that voter fraud is almost nonexistent. The true purpose of a voter ID law is to disenfranchise the old, the poor and the disabled; all of whom would not vote as Republicans want.

Why do I believe this?

Because I was raised in Texas and remember the poll tax. My Yankee grandmother moved to Texas with my native Texan mother after WWII. My grandmother was shocked to discover she had to pay to vote. I can remember my mother explaining the pernicious nature of the poll tax. The poll tax was designed to keep the poor and especially African Americans from voting. The poll tax was successful.

The 24th amendment to the constitution of the United States was passed to end the poll tax. President Lyndon Johnson said, "There can be no one too poor to vote." Republicans want to put lie to that.

Now, to vote you will need a driver's license or state photo ID to vote. Proponents of the Voter ID law say that these ID's are now free.  These ID's are not available at the corner grocer.  You  must be able to go to your local driver's license office and wait a considerable length of time to have your photo taken for the ID.  If you are old, infirm or poor, especially if you don't have a car, this becomes a daunting task. Just as in the past, when the poll tax could only be purchased in the courthouse downtown, now the modern poll tax will be just as hard to access for the portion of the population that Republicans want to disenfranchise.

Photo by Dan Young Wausau Daily Herald

Many of the disenfranchised may lack the documentation necessary to get a photo ID.  In one Wisconsin case, an elderly woman who has voted for years and served in public office lacks the proper documentation and will have to go to court to get it at considerable cost.  My own paternal grandmother did not have a birth certificate because she was born on a farm in rural Wisconsin.

Jesus told us that "whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me".  When we deprive the poor, the disabled, the ex-convict ,the elderly of the right to vote, we deprive Jesus.  In 2012, could Jesus vote in your state?.

Could Jesus Vote in Texas?

The Texas Senate plans to enact a law to require a photo ID before you can vote. The majority says it is to prevent voter fraud. This, of course, is not the purpose. The purpose is to disenfranchise the old, the poor and the disabled; all of whom would not vote as the majority in the Senate desires.

Why do I believe this?

Because I was raised in Texas and remember the poll tax. My yankee grandmother moved to Texas with my native Texan mother after WWII. My grandmother was shocked to discover she had to pay to vote. I can remember my mother explaining the pernicious nature of the poll tax. The poll tax was designed to keep the poor and especially African Americans from voting. The poll tax was successful.

The 24th amendment to the constitution of the United States was passed to end the poll tax. President Lyndon Johnson said, "There can be no one too poor to vote." The Texas Senate is determined to put lie to that.

Now, to vote you will need a driver's license or state photo ID to vote. This means you must be able to pay for those documents. In addition, you must be able to go to your local driver's license office and wait a considerable length of time to have your photo taken. If you are old, infirm or poor, especially if you don't have a car, this becomes a daunting task. Just as in the past, when the poll tax could only be purchased in the courthouse downtown, now the modern poll tax will be just as hard to access for the portion of the population that the majority of our Senate wants to disenfranchise.

Texans should be ashamed, but like their senators, too many would rather not see these people vote. "Afterall, if these people were fit to vote, they could get an ID, " is now the mantra.

Jesus said what we do to the least of these, we do to Him. Could Jesus vote in Texas?


Photo by trainmn74

Senator Clinton, Drop-out, and Senator Obama, Drop-out

I have grown weary of the media and Obama's supporters constant chant of "Drop-out Hillary." Time and again, commentators whine that Senator Clinton cannot win, that the way they calculate she will not have as many delegates as Senator Obama by the time of the Democratic convention. What these pundits neglect to say is that Senator Obama cannot win either. By convention time, he may be ahead in delegates but he will not have enough to win the nomination without the vote of the superdelegates. Neither can win without the superdelegates.

Obama supporters are especially disingenuous, saying that for the good of the party, Senator Clinton should drop-out. The only good they are thinking of is their candidate's. The media parrots the Obama line. Many people in states that have not voted yet in the Democratic Party process want to be able to participate. Those people have a right to have their votes count, too. What do the Obama people fear? A dismal showing in the final primaries by their candidate? Is that why they want to disenfranchise so many?

I suggest that Senator Obama drop-out in the interest of the party. His unknowns are coming home to roost. By the time he reaches the main event, independents will be running to McCain. Let's put it bluntly, he is losing the independent white vote because of his association with a church that seems to have harbored anti-American sentiments. In the last week, three different people I know well, not Democrats, not Republicans, have told me that they can no longer support Obama. Everyone admired his speech on race, everyone thought it did not address the issue.

I can understand staying with a church despite the pastor, but that was not Senator Obama's explanation. He stayed because he had not heard the pastor's hate speech. Once he heard that speech, he did not leave because the pastor had retired. I would have argued that a church is not the pastor, that a church is its people. A church with wonderful people that tolerates an aging pastor is one scenario, a church that endorses the preaching of an intolerant pastor is another. I am not clear which describes Senator Obama's church.

All the pro-Obama pundits are saying that the Reverend Wright fiasco is over. I don't think so. I think that it is less important to Democrats than to independents and to Republicans fed up with George Bush. If Senator Obama is the nominee, I fear how his pastor's and his wife's words will be used against him. Yes, that is the other topic that comes up with the independents that I know, Mrs. Obama's statements. Sad to say, I think what people say to pollsters may not reflect how they will vote. We must wait for the next primary.

The Democratic Party has a process in place with which to select its nominee. The nominee is not the person that reaches the convention with the most votes in hand, the nominee is the person that collects 2024 votes at the convention. Let's wait for the actual vote.