Democrat's Position On Voter ID

Watch CNN Totally Contradict Itself On U.S. Voting Machine Rigging ~ Then & Now

CNN continues denying the possibility of voter fraud in the 2020 elections. However, footage from their own reporting reveals they previously considered voting fraud a “national security issue.” One America’s Pearson Sharp has more. Exclusive CNN report from 2017 exposes dangerous vulnerabilities in U.S. voting machines. Included is a clip from an exclusive CNN report from 2017, exposing the dangers voting fraud poses to our democracy. CNN won’t admit it today, but back then they shared this report. They even went as far as to state, “the 2020 election will be hacked, no matter what.”

Great Compilation of Trump Condemning Racism for Dumb Liberals in Denial

How China Helped Kill George Floyd and Set the World on Fire

What really happened to George Floyd. He survived the China virus but did not survive another deadly product of China that very few people talk about. 

Indicrat Policy On Religious Tests For Immigrants And Citizens.

If a U.S. citizen said that a very important requirement of his religion was to eat a human heart once a month, would Liberals allow it? Or would Liberals say there's a limit to that particular religious freedom? What if there were 5 million adherents of this hypothetical religion living in the United States and another 10 million living in other parts of the world? And some had the desire to immigrate to America. How would Liberals wish to process them into the country?

Koran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

There are MANY kill commands in the Muslim holy book, far more than in the holy books of other major religions. Some adherents to this religion (Islam), commonly known as "Radical Islamic Terrorists", act on the commands of their religion.

In U.S. we have "Freedom of Religion", but what does that mean exactly?
We also have "Freedom of the Press" and "Freedom of Speech", but Liberals and Conservatives alike have settled on the premise that "Freedom of Speech" does not mean yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

There are LIMITS. We have limits to all our "Freedoms".

The intention of the Founding Fathers of the U.S. was for people to be able to practice their religion

peacefully, without hurting others.

But religions have physical rituals that can impact society at large. What if a ritual was so unsanitary it spread a biological contagion? Would that be permitted?

The answer, even for Liberals, is of course no.

But what about a thought contagion? What if the doctrine of a religion was so virulent that on average, one out of a thousand adherents would be seduced to act out in some physical form to comply with that virulent doctrine?

Well, there seems to be no answer from Liberals about how to deal with this type thought contagion, just denial. Ironically, a "racist" or "sexist" thought contagion is attacked relentlessly by Liberals. Also, Liberals will mock and criticize a Christian thought contagion, but will not attack a "Muslim" one.

If someone wants to practice their right to free speech by yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, what do the authorities do? They stop him. They shut him down. They remove him from public places.
They confine him. They extricate him from places where he could do harm.

If this person belonged to a cult that commanded in their doctrine to do this, but most members did not have the proclivity to act on it, should theater employees knowingly allow members of that group into their premises without anyway of determining if one or more of those visitors intended to disrupt their establishment? And allow them in for the sake of politically correct inclusiveness?

Common Sense dictates the owner of that theater has the right to deny service to help insure the safety of all his costumers, staff and property. And that owner is backed up by legal precedent.

The Muslims that act on the kill commands of their holy book are at war with the U.S., therefore we must defend ourselves.

So, is it constitutional to ban Muslims if an unknown, hidden element of them are at war with us?

The writers of the constitution left a document that had to be interpreted with common sense by
future U.S. citizens. It is beyond human capacity to anticipate every contingency.

When the Founders wrote about "Freedom of Religion", apparently, they failed to make it abundantly clear if that applied to all religions, or only to religions that did not have a significant portion of their adherents bent on the destruction of the American way of life.

That question was left for future generations to answer just like the meaning of the "right to bare arms" has been. Some Liberals will tell you that the "right to bare arms" only applies to militias. Conservatives say it means that individuals can have arms to protect themselves and their property.

So the question is - Can we have a RELIGIOUS TEST for immigrants if there are existing religions that not only threaten national security, but have sects that have either declared war on us or engaged in war on us?

THAT IS THE KEY.

Should the limit to religious freedom be where the religion in question, either fully or in part, declares or conducts war on the rest of society?

The founders never answered that question. The Founders left it up to future generations
to answer that question.

For an INDICRAT, the answer is YES.

The Founders said we cannot favor one religion over others. They did not address what to do if we are forced to have more circumspection towards a specific religion because it is so damn virulent.

If you have 3 kids and one of them is out of control, so much so you have to send them to boarding school, that doesn't mean you necessarily favor your other two kids more. It just means you did what you had to do.

We did not let Germans into our country during WWII because some of them might be Nazis. "Germany" is not a religion but the comparison applies because both Nazism and Religion are, for better or worse, forms of ideology. Why do we have to treat religious ideologues differently than political ideologues when they have declared and conducted war against us?

Or to frame it a different way...

Suppose all religions were as violent and problematic as Islam is in this day and age.

Then, we would be treating them all with the same level of circumspection. There would be no accusations that we were "favoring" one, or some religions over others.

This distinction illustrates that it is not our intention or purpose to treat Muslims a certain way that is different than the way we treat Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Sikhs, etc. 

The fact is, we are forced, by some Muslims, to treat them differently with no prior intent of favoritism. All Islamists are Muslim, but not all Muslims are Islamists. It is the Islamists we have a problem with.

If a cop smells alcohol on a driver he stopped, there's noting wrong with drinking alcohol per se, but the cop gives them a sobriety TEST to makes sure they are not too inebriated and are safe to drive.
In the same, way if we know someone is Muslim we should have a religious TEST to see if they are not too radical, not a jihadist, not an Islamist, and are safe to be in our country. Immigration authorities should be allowed to examine their social media, personal connections and past activities. This would be similar to checking out why a German is entering the United States in WWII. We were at war with Nazis and we are at war with Islamists. It's that simple.

It is not a violation of the constitution to examine a person's background with regards to religion
because scrutinizing a person's religious fervor is not the same as favoring one religion over another.

Once we accept the notion that it is okay to apply reasonable discretion and judgement

on a problematic religious faction because they forced us (in the same way that prosecutors use their discretion whether to prosecute a criminal case), then we can tackle this problem in logical and humane way that just makes sense.

~ by Dhruva Aliman

Best Compilation- People Who Laughed at TRUMP...and said he would never be President

Celebrities, Pundits, and Politicians made their predictions and had their laughs like George Clooney, Tom Hanks, Bernie Sanders, Seth Meyers, Joy Behar (The View), Bob Beckel (CNN), Julia Roberts, Ann Coulter, Bill Maher (HBO), Stephen Colbert (The Late Show), Nancy Pelosi (congresswoman, former house speaker), Harry Reid (senator), Barack Obama, The Simpsons (TV show), Elizabeth Warren, Fareed Zakaria, George Stephanopoulos (ABC News), Mark Cuban (Billionaire), Chris Matthews (Hardball MSNBC), John Oliver (The Daily Show Comedy Central), Keith Ellison (Congressman), Ron Reagan....and More!

The Voting Age Is Too Damn Low.

The U.S.A. has a fundamental flaw. It shot itself in the foot when it made the voting age 18. This self inflicted wound will insidiously drag this republic down.

The voting age should be at least 21. 18 year olds, in general, don't know what they're doing. Besides the fact that their brains aren't even fully formed, they simply don't have enough life experience and education to make a cogent decision on which direction this country should go.

If you have never had to pay rent, health insurance, utilities, and don't know what it's like to meet the basic requirements to survive on your own, and you are under 21, you should not have the entitlement to make choices that impact all that do pay their rent. Why should a teenager that is not functioning in the real world get to decide what the government is going to do to YOU?

We send our 18 year olds to college. Why? Because the don't have enough education yet. So why are we allowing them to vote on something that really requires knowledge?

If voting does not require knowledge, then let's let 12 year olds vote, why not 5 year olds?
What makes the number 18 so special?

Of course there should be exceptions. If you are 18 and are in the Armed Services, yes, you get to vote. If you are 18 and and can provide an electrical bill in your own name and show you are not a dependent, then you get a voter card giving you access to the voting booth.

The exceptions can be hashed out.

However, if the adults of the U.S. continue to allow an ignorant, Lord of the Flies contingent to influence the fate of this country, then they have abdicated their responsibility as adults. And both the young, and the old, will face the consequences.

In 1971 the Twenty-sixth Amendment (Amendment XXVI) to the United States Constitution was passed, lowering the voting age from 21 to 18. This Amendment must be repealed and replaced with a voting age of 21 with certain exceptions for those between the age of 18 and 21, if this republic is going to survive.

Amendment XXVI was passed on an emotional Vietnam war slogan, "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote"...That should be the exception, not the rule.

The democrats now want 16 year olds to vote because they pay taxes. Well, what about the 15 or 14 year olds pay taxes? If that's the criteria, anyone that pays taxes should be allowed to vote. Which begs the question, should foreigners that pay taxes be allowed to vote? And should American citizens that do not pay taxes be barred from voting? Obviously, tax paying cannot be the sole criteria. How much skin you have in the game should be the main criteria. If you are independent, paying most or all your bills and are not a tax dependent on your parents or guardian, then you should vote.

The majority of 18-24 year olds live at home. So, for the sake of this country, let's split the difference and keep it at 21.

~Dhruva Aliman