Ante Up

Elisabeth Hasselback

A Facebook post, firing vile commentary directed at FOX & Friends co-host Elisabeth Haselback, alerted me that the progressive propagandists are stirring up the low information crowd once again.

On FOX & Friends, Hassleback hosted a conversation between two pundits about a proposal in Utah about young students having to pass a citizenship test.  Hassleback queried whether such a testing mechanism should be utilized before a citizen could vote, which is a legitimate inquiry.

With that question, Hasselback was described by the left as guilty of aiming to bring back Jim Crow laws, which would according to the author of the article linked in the Facebook post, supposedly hammer African Americans.  Hasselback's inquiry was not even remotely an attempt to suggest such a thing, rather an implication asserted by the author of the article. 

During the discussion on FOX, it was the pundit from the right, Whitney Neal, who found the idea of a test unnecessary, instead championing the idea of school systems investing in more educational opportunities in the arena of civics and government.  I agree completely.

It has been well chronicled, that although we continue to spend increasingly enormous amounts on public education, those investments are spent without receiving an adequate return on investment. 

Again in reference to Aldous Huxley, our citizenry, particularly a great deal of representatives of our young people in their high school and college years, are drunk on sea of irrelevance.  They know what the Kardasians are up to, who the new upcoming rapper on the scene is, but have no idea who their congressman is, or who the United States recently began bombing.

And they do not seem to care; with the lack of intellectual curiosity quite alarming.


On the subject of a minimum set of standards with respect to voting, I am open to investigating some options.  I cannot recall the exact source of the following quote, but is fixed firmly in the seat of truth.

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

With over 50% of the citizenry receiving some sort of governmental assistance, we have reached the point described in the above referenced passage.  Even if this was agreed upon as the proper direction for our government, the efforts are unsustainable for a country that is arguably insolvent.  For those who champion an increase in taxation as a remedy, it is noted the significant increase in taxation needed would fail to solve the issue anyhow, because when you tax something, you get less of it.

We are a free society, but there is a responsibility that comes with being a citizen of the United States of America, and it is clear the a large segment of our society is disengaged from the political process, which allows those in the arena of governance to expand control over the ill-informed.

Those of us who are informed are outnumbered by those who are not adequately educated in the process, and now by those who are receiving governmental assistance.  Many of these individuals and families are not in real need, just taking advantage of the system, which makes it more difficult to provide assistance to those who are in real need of help, a worthwhile endeavor.

Some skin in the game seems required.  To restrict voting to only those who own property seems limiting, and too radical as a criteria.  A testing system Hassleback queried about appears easily infiltrated by those with unsavory objectives. 

Perhaps the best qualifying mechanism would require that you are either a full time student, a senior citizen receiving social security having already paid into the system, sane individuals documented with legitimate handicaps, a member of the military or an individual who is employed and pays income taxes.  Individuals who fail to meet that criteria and receive governmental assistance would be ineligible. That would limit those voting to those who have skin in the game.

In addition, you must have an ID to vote.  This requirement is not racist, degrading, unfair or political in nature.  Adequate identification is required for many things, driving a vehicle of particular note, and would go a long way in the elimination of voter fraud.  One man, one vote.

Voting is perhaps the most important role of the citizen, and protection of the integrity of the process is integral to the efficiency of the process.

I say everyone ante up. What say you?