Should We Require Intelligence of Voters?

It is important each of us spend some time vetting the candidates ourselves.  I believe if folks really did their homework Obama would not have won. 

Not that McCain was a great candidate on the other side…he was not.

We could look at socialist Dems like Jim Wallis who think that Hugo Chavez’ Venezuela is some kind of utopia that should be emulated.

We could look at the fact that Obama belonged to a fake church in a fake denomination led by an ideological racist rather than a Christian, coupled with his support of the Muslim Brotherhood and his callous disregard for Christians when they are slaughtered in Africa or Lebanon.

But I’d like to focus on “[I]f Republicans want me to produce a photo ID to prove I’m the same person who’s been voting for four decades, then Democrats have the right to demand some basic level of intelligence from the other side.”

This is pernicious nonsense. It’s like saying that if Republicans say that if I possess a deed to my house, therefore I have a right to be there and run it according to how I like, then it is equally reasonable for Democrats to inspect the books I keep there and the TV programs I watch, and after concluding that they are “dumb”, they therefore have the right to allow anyone who wants to invade my house, raid my icebox, and appropriate part of my income.

It’s an absurd non sequitur that I’m sure Mr. Whitfield does not follow in his own life.

6) Does the Government create money? (Obviously the Treasury prints dollars, but that’s not what we mean.)

7) Do we spend more money on the military or on domestic spending on ourselves?

8) Do wealthy Americans pay their ‘fair share’ in taxes?

9) Do the top 10% of American income earners provide more or less than 40% or all federal revenue?

10) Do the bottom 50% of all American taxpayers provide the federal government with more or less than 10% of its revenue?

That’s a good start. Don’t get me started on global warming.

11) True or false: Putting more government money into public schools helps students perform better and learn more.

One thing that makes me suspicious of Obama’s Christianity: why are secularists and atheists so rabid in their support of Obama, if he is truly Christian? Wasn’t the supposed sincerity of Bush’s faith the reason they mistrusted and loathed him?

Seen in this light, the assertion from the left that Obama is a Christian seems like a bit of a con. They are in on it, and they use threats (depriving people of votes) if they dare to suggest otherwise, in order to reinforce the con to those Christians who might doubt it. Dan Barker, of the Freedom *From* Religion Foundation has often said that joining the UU is a great cover for atheists who want to infiltrate politics, but must lie to constituents in order to convince them that they are religious. I guess the UU has become too outre, so now secular politicians must resort to joining the UCC.

I think Santorum had a good comeback to this fakery that was provocative yet inoffensive. He observed that Obama’s support of abortion wasn’t really reflective of Christian values. “Are you claiming he wasn’t a Christian?” asked the reporter. Santorum replied “I guess if he says he is one, he must be”. It reminded me of Jesus’ sly retort. “By whose authority do you do these things?”. “First tell me, was John’s baptism of God or of man?” We must be shrewd when replying to dishonest people, but we can still be so in a way that exposes their hypocrisy and fallacious thinking.

12) True or false: Government subsidies in the healthcare market have made the cost of healthcare less expensive and more affordable for the average American consumer.

13) True or false: Government subsidies for public and higher education have made education less expensive, higher quality, and have increased the rate of return that a person gets from their education when they go on the job market.

I would suggest that Paul Winfield should not be allowed to vote unless he can solve a quadratic equation.

Ooops! Whitfield, not Winfield.

I think if someone treasonously suggests that rightful citizens should be denied the right to vote, and that lawbreakers should, all at the discretion of a self appointed moron like Whitfield, that Whitfield should be deported to some socialist paradise like Venezuela, and not be allowed to vote in US elections.

If he does not understand the principles on which the political process takes place, then he is the dangerous moron who ought not be allowed to participate in it.

I’ll see your empty threat, and raise you mine.

I view this quite simply: those who are citizens and own property (land, house, real estate) upon which taxes are levied should be the ones voting. Those that own nothing will continue to demand more from the producers of the economy without understanding the impacts. A big thank you to the Democratic Party for making this transparently clear.

14)  Is Mitt short for “Mittens” Romney?

The problem of voter stupidity” is overwhelmingly exceeded (probably by at least a couple of orders of magnitude) by the problem of voter ignorance. And, by ignorance, I </b>do not mean</b> ignorance of simple facts of current events, I mean something similar to what David Fischler captures in his list, but on matters which arem, I would assert, more fundamental to societies than the specific questions involved in the sort of ignorance David’s list tests for. I mean, rather, ignorance of how the world works, particularly economically and societally and morally.

Prime examples of the sorts of questions I imagine asking are similar to the following:

• Can a person, a household, or a government successfully live continuously beyond its means, whether by continuous borrowing or by systematic counterfeiting?

Too many of our fellow electors think that there are at least two different answers, each dependent upon which of the proposed subjects of that sentence is being discussed.

• Can the government actually create even one job (which job must be productive, i.e., it must generate sufficient revenue from the effort of its holder to more than pay the salary and benefits of that holder.

Too many of our fellow electors think that the answer is a resounding yes, despite the fact that government has historically produced almost nothing that has resulted in increased net income to anyone—government included.

• Can an able-bodied person who is unwilling to work to support him/herself readily avoid becoming dependent upon another, whether the other is a doting parent or the welfare state?

Too many of our fellow electors think the state of a person’s self-esteem is independent of the person’s source of sustenance.

• (At least when asking Christians) Given God’s commandments neither to steal, and nor to covet a neighbors wealth, or house, etc., can it ever be considered moral to use the threat of deadly force (on which the state has a monopoly) to take one person’s property in order to give it to another person?

Too many of our fellow self-identified Christian electors think Christ told us to do just that, thinking that the government (Federal and/or State and/or local) is Caesar, not realizing that as a democratice republic, the electorate is Caesar. Christ was addressing us personally and individually when he issued that directive. It is my responsibility to do so voluntarily, or failing to do it and to suffer the eternal consequences of that failure of responsibility.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

Well put, Keith. Agree completely.

Festivus,  this country had laws like that- only property owners could vote. But no more. good try though. 

Hmmmm, I flunked the test question: are you sure he’s a Christian?  Is there really enough evidence to convict him of that?  Seriously, has anyone seen a baptismal record?  What church did the baptism?  By water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

He’s for gay marriage, he’s for unlimited abortion, he’s for expansive government and limited freedom, he’s for confiscating wealth [stealing]. 

Maybe Whitfield shouldn’t get to vote…....

Oh yeah, I forgot: he thinks the Muslim call to prayers is the sweetest sound in the world.

David,

Your question should have read “Should we require intellegence of candidates for ANY elective office?”  From the federal level right on down to precinct…oops, yes, and to vestry and church boards, of any description.

1.) Frankly, I could care less whether Obama is a Christian, or where he was born for that matter.  Those issues are total dead ends and there is so much more material with which to deal productively. 

2.) It’s a bit difficult to deal in truisms in the liberal/conservative debate but there are still a few that are very clear:  a.) Liberals want more government (and less personal responsibility) believing that will solve all problems while conservatives what less government and more personal responsibility.  b.) Our rights to free speech & assembly are severely endangered by Liberals.

3.) If Mr. Whitfield had his way they would have to exempt most of the leadership of the Democrat Party (i.e. Pelosi, Reid, Watters & Wasserman-Schultz).

Really, now.  He’s not trying.  Here is a superb example of the way to raise money for the government staring him in the face and he’s not getting it!  POLL TAX.  (I doubt he knows enough history for the concept to ruffle his feathers.)  Then again he could opt for the LITERACY TEST before voting.  (ibid.)  Or, maybe he would be for a simple uniparty system like that so successful in the former USSR and Cuba.  (double down ibid.)

Gotta love when these bright rays of tolerance and diversity shine the light of their benevolence into the dark corners of their little minds, don’t you?  Reminds me of Bostonians burning buses when the Feds required them to meet school quotas and a Democratic Convention in Chicago in bygone years.

1)  Johnny has three Jolly Ranchers.  Julie has none.  Julie shoots Johnny a playful wink.  Johnny gives Julie one of his Jolly Ranchers.  Which answer is most correct:

a)  Julie should thank Johnnie for his generousity. 
b)  It isn’t fair that the Laffer Curve looks this way.  The government should take 3 of Johnny’s remaining candies, and redistribute 0.4 of them to people in the US and Mexico, while keeping the rest to pay down the debt. 
c)  Johnnie and Julie live in a hopelessly Puritanical society that enslaves people who may or may not be the sex they were born with.  They should have access to a health care plan that allows them to explore their true gender identity. 
d)  Michelle Obama rides in on her high horse, dismounts, and sticks out her hand, school-marm style.  Johnny and Julie promptly spit out their Jolly Ranchers into said hand.  Then, they do some jumping jacks together and enjoy some carrot sticks, just in time for a photo-op. 

2)  You are not voting for Obama.  This makes you:
a)  unhappy with his policies
b)  happier with another cantidate’s policies
c)  a racist

3)  You are extremely uncomfortable in an airport or a shopping mall, and eat at Chik Fa Let.  Which answer is most correct:
a)  You are agorophobic and like fried chicken.
b)  You are agorophobic and homophobic. 

4)  You are not voting for Obama, but you are not voting for Romney.  This makes you: 
a)  a traitor
b)  unhappy with the prospect of either cantidate as a leader
c)  someone who has effectively cast their ballot for Obama
d)  someone who has effectively cast their ballot for Romney
e)  someone who isn’t voting

5)  Romney is a Mormon.  Mormons are
a)  Christians
b)  not Christians, but rather nice people who belong to a false religion. 

6)  Twelve people die from James Holmes.  One of the victims of the massacre later miscarries due to her injuiries.  James Holmes has killed how many people?
a)  12
b)  13
c)  I don’t know.  It’s above my paygrade.  Er, twelve. 
d)  Thirteen, and didn’t we address the question of who gets to be labeled ‘person’ during the Civil War?
e)  Twelve, and didn’t we get to address the question of privacy in Roe v Wade?

Well done, Moot!