Call in to speak with the host
As the 2012 Presidential Election races heating up, certain states, in an attempt to protect against voter fraud, have either enacted or toughened regulations that require positive I.D., in order to be allowed to vote.
In response a number of Democrats have denounced this effort, charging an attempt to preventing “minority” and elders from voting, under the premise that such votes would be Democratic, for Barack Obama. Some have gone so far as calling this a modern-day “poll tax”.
The GOP on the other hand, argue that there is nothing wrong with requiring positive I.D.,since in many instances, they're required for driver’s license, air flight or collecting government assistance. Not really rights, but the GOP also cites recent cases, such as with ACORN where nearly 400,000 votes were deemed to be based on fraudulent registrations. And in Wake County, N.C., three voters were charged in with voting twice in the 2008 presidential election, and a member of the Executive Committee of the NAACP in Tunica County, Miss. was sentenced in April, to 5years in prison for fraudulently casting absentee ballots. She was convicted of voting in the names of 6 other voters, as well as in the names of 4 dead voters.
And I forgot to note that the illegal immigration issue looms in the back ground.
Right now, it's December, 11 months before the 2012 Presidential Election, where we will either have 4 more years of Barack Obama or a new Administration, (and given recent developments over the past week), either a Romney or Gingrich.
Tune in to CRTICAL DISCOURSE, at our new time, 7:30 AM, and weigh in on this issue, which conjures in the minds of many, a throwback to an ugly era in American politics, or a positive more forward, in assuring the every [legit] vote counts.
Sorry we couldn't complete your registration. Please try again.
Please enter your email to finish creating your account.
old-style code for hosted blogs
300 x 295
400 x 370
640 x 550
It's good to talk.