Not everyone should vote

Jay Baker

Voting, restricting, demonizing, question begging and shooting the most electoral, racist, anti-white, fallacious and propagandic fakeries in the week's fake news. Not everyone should vote On the day before some 100 million Americans (most of them actually citizens) went to the polls to vote in local, state and national elections this week, the globalist mouthpiece publication Foreign Policy (FP) asked, "Why is it so hard to vote in America?" The editorial posits that a voter turnout that lags behind socialist utopias like Belgium, Sweden and Denmark indicates that voting in America is too difficult. FP laments that the United States has onerous roadblocks in some states, like a so-called complicated registration process, requiring people who vote to actually be who they say they are (voter ID), dumping inactive voters off the rolls, requiring voter information to match government databases, voting during the week on a normal work day and no established national holiday for voting. America has a huge "scheduling problem," FP claims, because, "To cast their ballots, many Americans have to rush to their polling stations before work or face long lines at the end of the day. That's because voting in the United States is done in the middle of the week." So FP suggests a number of things the U.S. can do to encourage more voting. Among its suggestions are automatic voter registration, establishing a national voting holiday and expanded early voting.  The idea that voting in the U.S. is difficult is fake news indeed. Registration opportunities abound. Kids get registered at school when they turn 18, they can register at the local courthouse and many civic organizations set up registration booths at local fairs, pageants and celebration day events. The federal government has online registration, as do many — if not all — states. In the weeks leading up to the registration deadline, government men and celebrities alike take to the airwaves to encourage registration and explain how to begin the process. When voting day comes, polls are open anywhere from 11 to 15 hours… and longer if any hint of ballot trouble, foul weather or impropriety arises. Some states require a photo ID, but everything from writing a check to applying for government services requires one, so not more than one in a million adults are likely without one. Then there is early voting that goes on for weeks, and absentee voting. A greater percentage of whites vote than blacks — except in 2008 and 2012 when racist blacks turned out to vote for the half-black man simply because he was black — but only by a couple of percentage points. And older people are much more likely to vote than younger people by a wide margin. People aged 60 and older turn out at a rate of 70 percent which debunks the argument that voting is difficult and standing in line is a problem. Almost 60 percent of people aged 30 and up vote. It's the young people who don't participate, and all of them are technologically savvy enough to find a way to vote if they want to. So what we have here is that FP believes everyone must vote, and conventional wisdom holds that everyone should. As the boss recently noted: You are vilified and looked down on for not voting. Witness the rise of the "I voted" buttons you will see everywhere on Election Day. Oh how they want to make our country like the socialist utopia where voter participation is 100 percent! The opposite of the yellow star during WWI. Those who don't wear an "I voted" sticker are supposed to feel ashamed. But the truth is, if you're too dumb to know who's running or what they stand for, you shouldn't vote. If you think that transferring wealth from one segment of society to another is a good idea that will create a society of equality, you shouldn't vote. And if you're too lazy stand in line when all the old codgers who can manage totter up to the polling place do it a smile on their faces, you shouldn't vote. FP has decided that everyone wants to vote but more than 30 percent of those who don't vote didn't vote because they were being hindered, even though there's nothing to back that premise. You can be sure that if anyone was denied an opportunity to vote there'd be video of it on the interwebz immediately. But all that's assuming that voting makes a difference anyway. On a national scale, I'm not so sure that's the case. Your vote just determines which cronies get the choicest seats at the table. Correction: Socialists want everyone to vote except straight white men Seems the boss erred when he said that socialists want a utopia where voter participation is 100 percent. Stephen Clifford, author and former CEO of the King Broadcasting Company and National Mobile Television, says that the U.S. government should "prohibit straight white males from voting" in U.S. elections as a way to "save" democracy. As PJMedia reports: "I think it's the only hope for democracy in America and I will be leading a great movement to prohibit straight white males, who I believe supported Donald Trump by about 85 percent, from exercising the franchise and I think that will save our democracy," Clifford said during an interview after speaking at the forum "Destroying the Myths of Market Fundamentalism," which was organized by the Center for Study of Responsive Law – a group former independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader founded in 1968. Umm. Mr. Clifford: America is not a democracy. And if you cut out straight white men you're going to bring down the voter participation rate, which is going to make heads explode over at FP. Who needs white men, anyway? Certainly not Kirsten Powers, who used to make sense — at least for a leftist — but seems to have lost her marbles since she started hanging out with the gay white guys at CNN. Powers — who was married to one white guy and is now engaged to another — was on a special Sunday edition of CNN Tonight with Don Lemon — thearticulate light-skinned black guy who dates a white a guy but still hates white guys — and said that "white men are very violent and a problem." The comments came during a discussion of Lemon's recent nonsensical statement that "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men…" Said Powers: If all these school shootings were done by someone from the Middle East, there'd be a very different reaction to them. I think if they were frankly done by African-Americans, it would be a very different reaction to them. So what we see here is we ignore — and we have statistics here showing that white men are very violent and a problem, and nothing's being done about it. And then we have the President of the United States talking about a bunch of brown people like they're the terrorists. I mean, we have a county where we — every other day it seems like a white woman calls the police on a black man for barbecuing or gardening or delivering the mail, and yet we sit quietly while all these white men are out, you know, terrorizing people essentially. I mean, every time there's one of these shootings, and it's a white man. As we noted last week, black men commit far more crimes with guns — murders included — than whites, even though they make up less than 7 percent of the population. But it's politically incorrect to talk about that. So Powers is right in one respect. If these shootings were "frankly done by African-Americans, it would be a very different reaction to them." The MSM would ignore them like it does the problem of blacks killing an inordinate number of people. Politifact is unbiased, just ask them Politifact has checked itself for bias and failed to find any. Begging the question, much? Politifact has just delved into logical fallacy. We can trust them because they say so. Here's how they proved their point: Not only have they given negative ratings to Donald Trump, they also have given negative ratings to Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Maxine Waters and — shocker of all — Barack Obama. The more one makes inaccurate statements, the more they fact check them. They correct their errors. They don't take money from anonymous sources, political parties, politician or any other source they Politifact deems has or creates a conflict of interest (except leftwing organizations). We're so glad they cleared that up. I guess we were imagining things when we pointed out they were biased and fake news so many times in this space. But if you're as far left as Politifact, even the center looks right wing. 60 Minutes lies about mass shooters' "weapon of choice" The unhinged anti-Trumper Scott Pelley, fired from his job as anchor of CBS Evening News and booted over to 60 Minutes, continues to make stuff up. This week it was a report that said that the AR-15 is the "weapon of choice" for mass shooters. Pelley mentioned five shootings in his report: Tree of Life Synagogue (Oct. 27, 2018), Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. (Feb. 14, 2018), the church at Sutherland Springs, Texas (Nov. 5, 2017), Las Vegas concert (Oct. 1, 2017), and Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Conn. (Dec. 14, 2012). The report is no doubt a prelude to the coming attempts to ban so-called "assault rifles" that are sure to come now that Democrats have control of the House of Representatives. Communist Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, who bears a stunning resemblance to Jabba the Hut, didn't even wait until the smoke cleared in the Thousand Oaks, California shooting — which did not involve a rifle of any kind — before going off on an anti-gun rant on Twitter. But according to research from globalist think tank Rockefeller Institute of Government, rifles have been used in less than 29 percent of all mass shootings. Which stands to reason, given that the FBI Crime Stats show that only 403 people were killed by criminals using rifles in 2017 — fewer than died from attacks by knives, clubs and hammers and hands and feet. So once again Pelley is fake news. Calls for bans on so-called "assault weapons" are not about saving lives. They are about restricting your freedoms.