jump to last post 1-14 of 14 discussions (87 posts)

Anyone been following the systematic disenfranchisement movement ?

  1. sunforged profile image68
    sunforgedposted 4 years ago

    Disenfranchisement Movement?

    Must have had my head in the dirt or clouds or something, but this topic is new "news" to me.

    Today I have read reports from Rolling Stone, 3rd party Think Tanks, Non Partisan Watchdog groups and many many traditional news sources.

    So has it been mainstream news that bills that create barriers to the voting and voting registration process have been passing in GOP controlled areas all year ?

    Just happens that those who will be disenfranchised by the changes are those that historically vote Dem?

    Any Pro-Stances to this?

    http://prospect.org/article/dnc-fights- … uppression
    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne … g-20110830

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Another Republican dirty trick based on a big lie that voter fraud is a significant problem.

      1. sunforged profile image68
        sunforgedposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I did see that they were using a non-issue of Voter Fraud as the reasoning behind pushing these measures through .. the Brennan Center link (NYU) does claim that true Voter Fraud (done by a Voter/ Tammany Hall style) is nearly non-existent.

        Has this been in the news at all ?(outside of op-eds)
        Can anyone look at the collected resources (or their own knowledge or resources) and tell me any positive or reasonable excuse for this to be able to occur at such a large scale?

        1. Cagsil profile image83
          Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It can occur because of the willful ignorance of most people on an individual level who rather not get mixed up into politics.

          The inaction is bringing down the entire system the Constitution is dependent upon. Public involvement in politics is not only necessary but is vital to freedom.

          1. couturepopcafe profile image60
            couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I am part of the public and I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of federally issued picture IDs.  I think it's necessary. There have always been indifferent citizens who don't vote and don't care.

            As far as voter fraud is concerned, I suppose whoever 'stuffed the ballot box' were voters whether individually or as an organization.  I personally wasn't there, but when it was in the news, there was rumor that the identities of dead people were used to vote.  I never understood how I could walk into the polls, say who I am, show some ID, without a picture, and vote.  Anyone can say they're me with a phony ID.  There needs to be an ID with some type of strip or paper that cannot be reproduced or copied electronically.  It will cost us but it's the way of the times, unfortunately.

          2. Jeff Berndt profile image90
            Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            "Public involvement in politics is not only necessary but is vital to freedom."

            Agreed, and it's also vital that the public pay attention to what their representatives are doing, and make decisions on whom to vote for based on reality, and not based on the party-line talking points. (This goes for both liberals and conservatives.)

            Federal ID? Those are called "passports." We use them when visiting other nation-states, and when re-entering the US, to prove we're from here. We are allowed to move freely about the US without showing our papers. I haven't heard any argument compelling enough to convince me that we ought to have a passport on us at all times.

      2. TMMason profile image74
        TMMasonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Oh please!

        What a joke that is.

        You all are just pissin mad cause the illegals make up a good chunk of your bloc and it'll annihilate your chances of ever holding the branches of Govt again.

        Shit if half of America, especially minorities, would read a book every now and then, and actually knew what your party was all about, and the racist bs history of it... you would all be run out of town.

        1. sunforged profile image68
          sunforgedposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I am interested in your stance, regarding this SPECIFIC issue. Could you try and tell me more in a bit more coherent manner?

          (I see that you are quite capable: http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/89652#post1914547)

          From what I can glean you feel the voting "restrictions"are valid as they will only be keeping illegals from voting?

          Did you do any research into what the specific limits/barriers are nationally and what percentage of people (legitimate voters) of what demographics are projected to be suppressed?

          1. TMMason profile image74
            TMMasonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The only restriction I see them putting on the voter is that of having a state issued or federal ID.

            That is in no way onerous on anyone. State laws require you carry an ID now, immigration laws require the carrying of an ID and immigration Docs., also.

            So you should have one anyways.

            I am tired of hearing people cry because they may have to wait in a line for a while well they get the ID.

            Too bad.

            And I did not say those restrictions would effect only illegals, I said the illegal bloc are the Dems block, and they do not want to loose them. As to anyone else that it would bother, effect,... if you want to vote, get an ID.


            There is no reason in this day not to have an ID.

            1. couturepopcafe profile image60
              couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I agree with you in principal.  I think it's quite necessary in these days for everyone to have a legal federal picture identification AND state identification.  Sure it'll be a bit of pain but no more so than going for a driver's license or passport.  It's still easier than filling out a job application.  Let me repeat, please.  It's completely necessary, IMO for every person who intends to vote to have a picture ID issued by the feds AND their state of residence.

            2. Jeff Berndt profile image90
              Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              "State laws require you carry an ID now,"

              Do they? I don't have to carry ID in Michigan. I need to have it if I want to buy booze, or operate a motor vehicle on public thoroughfares, but if I'm just walking down the street, I am not required to have any form of ID on me.

              1. couturepopcafe profile image60
                couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                New Jersey requires ID.  If found without one while being detained for some other reason, they can invoke a little used indigent law.

                1. Reality Bytes profile image93
                  Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Except for possession of false ID"s or firearms ID.  I can find no law in New Jersy requiring a person to have an Identification card on their person at all times.

                  "Your papers please" Does not exist yet.

                  They can make any claims they want, it will not hold up in Court!  There is no where in the United States that possession of an ID is required to live and breathe.

      3. couturepopcafe profile image60
        couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Sometimes people amaze me.  I'm not sure why this is viewed as a 'dirty trick'.  It doesn't benefit any party to have this put into place.  Everyone still gets to vote, nothing changes.  It just makes voting illegally much more difficult.  Old folks still have to get to the polls, naturalized citizens still have to get to the polls, I still have to pick up my 90 year old grandmother and take her to the polls, poor people and those without transportation still have to find a way to get to the polls.  What is the problem here?  There will likely be an increased effort to get those to the polls who can't get there on there on.  Win/win.

      4. uncorrectedvision profile image61
        uncorrectedvisionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What was the margin of victory in the 1960 Presidential election?  In Illinois?  What was the margin of victory in Florida in the 2000 Presidential election?  What was the margin of victory in Missouri, New Mexico and Wisconsin in the 200 election? 

        How is it a dirty trick to insist that a voter be entitled to the franchise they are exercising when voting?  Indiana has had a voter ID law and it hasn't significantly altered the representation in districts where one party or the other have had clearly superior and historical margins of victory.  In close districts, who knows?  Isn't it a significant thing to not have your vote diluted by those who would cheat?

        If vote fraud can cut both ways and Republicans are, in your estimation, more likely to practice dirty tricks, than how does a voter ID law actually harm Democrats more than Republicans?

        Could it be that liberals resist voter ID laws because they know there are places where they cannot win if they do not cheat?

        1. couturepopcafe profile image60
          couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Someone actually said (at the Christmas dinner table) that the Republicans pulled another dirty trick by giving in to the tax extension so they could go home for Christmas.  I pointed out that they did give in against their better judgement so everyone could go home for Christmas. She said they only did it because it benefitted them.  I pointed out that the Democrats did not give in at all, so who was the stubborn party here?  Republicans can't please some people even if they do what they ask.

      5. 69
        logic,commonsenseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        One must consider the sources.
        Republicans only want to disenfranchise those that cheat the system.
        What is wrong with verifying that a person is eligible to vote and has only voted once and in the correct polling place?
        I'm guessing you don't complain when a store asks you for your ID when you are writing a check.  There is no real reason not to expect to show an ID when voting.  Just trumped up excuses to cover up irregularities.

    2. uncorrectedvision profile image61
      uncorrectedvisionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      My opinion on voting.  I want it to be challenging to get your vote in.  I want the only votes cast to be those of people who value their vote so strongly as to fight to cast it.  Not an actual physical fight but a metaphorical one.  I crawled out of bed with a temperature of 104 to vote in a -no big office or challenger - local election.

      I don't want voting to be for the lazy, ignorant, distracted, slothful, foolish, parasitic, sycophantic, uneducated, or just plain stupid.

      I do not want those who cannot live within the social order peacefully to vote - so to disappoint Democrats - no convicted felons, ever. 

      I do not want those who cannot show that they are a citizen to vote - if it is good enough for your employer it is good enough for the Democrat party.

      There is no income, race or sex requirement for voting.

  2. Cagsil profile image83
    Cagsilposted 4 years ago

    I'm not shocked. hmm

    Nothing like stripping people of their most basic rights. I guess I should say thank you, but am too disgusted by politicians, to give them credit for something I've pointed out for the last couple of years.

    They will only help me more in the not so far future. I should be kind and appreciative, but will not. hmm

    1. couturepopcafe profile image60
      couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You sound a bit of an alarmist.  This doesn't strip anyone of the right to vote and you know this.

      1. Cagsil profile image83
        Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Oh please.....plenty of people in Congress would most certainly like to change America from an election process to a dictatorship. It's part and parcel of the power they are corrupted by.

        The thing is that they want to do it without people noticing that their rights are being stripped. There's no reason to force people to carry an ID to begin with nor should it be a requirement to vote.

        If you didn't read one of the links that Sunforged provided, then DO SO. In the article it stated that some people wouldn't be able to vote unless they had their birth certificate on them. Do you know anyone who carries that important document wherever they go? I don't know a single person who does carry it.

        1. couturepopcafe profile image60
          couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That would be  a problem considering many people have either lost their original birth certificates or the hospitals lost them.  Excepting that fact, it wouldn't be a problem to carry it to the polls.  It wouldn't work anyway because there's no picture unless they wanted to match baby foot prints.

          I can't argue with the fact that some in Congress would love to retain sole power.  I also agree with not being required to carry ID unless you're driving, buying liquor, traveling, or voting.

          1. couturepopcafe profile image60
            couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Additionally, there is talk about not being able to get ID without a birth certificate, so the birth certificate problem persists.  Currently in TN, all one needs to get ID is an electric bill to prove residence which apparently to the state of TN makes you identifiable.  I guess the electric company is the Man, now.

  3. 0
    oldandwiseposted 4 years ago

    My mom is 83 years old, never drove, never worked outside of the house and now needs a picture id to vote. She has none, and to get around she's in a wheelchair. For her to get a picture id she needs to get a Georgia id at the drivers license office. This is a big inconvenience in a wheelchair with an hour wait to get waited on. Not to mention she has to purchase the id. Is this fair? I think not.

    1. Pearldiver profile image86
      Pearldiverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think that is shocking, as I do the issues behind the OPs concerns.. sad

      But... Why did you not suggest to her that she merely opt for the Chip Implant and Barcode?  sad

      1. couturepopcafe profile image60
        couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this


        1. Pearldiver profile image86
          Pearldiverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Well.... Being a Kiwi, perhaps I wasn't being Sarcastic! smile

          Good on you for Not Allowing your thread to focus on the red herring of voter IDs SF.

          Clearly some have vested interests that are not being declared! sad

    2. couturepopcafe profile image60
      couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'm sorry, oldand wise, it's intended to protect the voting system we value.  It will be an inconvenience for a woman such as your mom and many others but it's necessary.  Somehow she got to the booths to vote even without driving?  I guess she'll figure out how to get the ID.

  4. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago

    I know of the voter ID Laws.  I do not have an ID, so under that LAW my Right is being infringed.

    I DO NOT CONSENT to have a false identity thrust upon me in the form of a Government created tracking device!  I can not be forced to accept a LIE! I also have no "registered address".  The Laws are designed so people like me can be thrust outside of the voter pool.

    I do agree with redistricting change, simply for the fact that the criminal Bawney Fwank will finally no longer be a Congressional member!

    1. couturepopcafe profile image60
      couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      How does one spend an entire life time without ID?  Good for you.  Under the law, you are not following the law if you want to vote.  Let's face it, few of us like all the laws and restrictions placed on us.  It's one thing after another all the time.  I still think picture IDs are necessary for the voting system.

    2. couturepopcafe profile image60
      couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      RB - So what I'm reading from you is that a govt. ID would lock you into an identity, one which you may not want.  OK.  But surely you can see that the laws are not specifically designed to 'keep people like you out', but to be sure that people like you perhaps, or others, don't try to sneak into the system as a non citizen.  And if you have no known registered address, maybe you're not a citizen, at least in the eyes of the state.

      But you agree with redistricting.  So what district would you fall into with no registered address?  Do you see that if everyone did this, there would be chaos at the polls?  "Yes, I'd like to vote."  Name?  "Reality Bytes from the third house on the left."  Next.  Name.  "Couturepopcafe from up the street."

      1. Reality Bytes profile image93
        Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I am a Sovereign Individual,
        I do not possess a name, I have a Title.  Mister My Name.  I am not a citizen, I am a resident.

        They want you to accept your Strawmnan corporate identity so that they can then view you as property!  They want you to maintain an "address", similar to your cell number, so they can track down their property.

        My opinion on redistricting was only because I am happy that I do not have to see the Barney Frank joke anymore, otherwise I could care less.

        I am a Freeman on the Land (FOTL)!

        I do not consent to Representation, I am not a ward of the state nor am I an imbecile unable to represent himself.

        I DO NOT CONSENT to holding up the validity of an illegal central government, nor do I agree that I am property of said such tyrannical entity.  I do as I please, I travel where I want.  I do not break common Law.  I also do not accept a Federal Reserve Note as anything of value.  I refuse to treat fictions as if they were REALITY!

        I will not accept an outright lie as truth.  I will Not conform!  I am part of the majority. 

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT … re=related

  5. sunforged profile image68
    sunforgedposted 4 years ago

    Before the discussion drifts only to Photo ID's - two points should be pounded home to those who didnt care enough to bother with any basic research.(links were provided ... or try a search for "voter suppression"

    1. Documented cases of Voter Fraud at the Polls are almost non-existent.
       The changes in voting/registration are clearly NOT intended as they are    presented.

    2. The changes outlined are far more in depth than the requirement in some areas to have a photo id. The GOP is systematically creating barriers to registration/ registration by groups and voting practice.

    1. TMMason profile image74
      TMMasonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I read several articles to this matter and they all gripe about IDs, and cry about "There is no fraud taking place"... which is BS.

      All the states laws are as to IDs... that is not voter suppression.

      Standing at a voting hall with clubs in your hand glaring at anyone not the same color as you... is voter suppression.

      See the difference?

      Probrably not.


      http://foxnewsinsider.com/2011/12/21/de … -new-york/

      http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/23/the-v … -least-15/

      http://biggovernment.com/mvadum/2011/08 … onspiracy/

      http://www.exposeobama.com/2011/09/15/a … ter-fraud/

      And then there is this...

      "Charity Rorie, a mother of four, sat in her Mishawaka, Ind., kitchen, stunned that her name appeared on a 2008 Democratic presidential primary petition for then-candidate Barack Obama.

      "That's not my signature," she told Fox News, saying her signature is "absolutely" a fake. She also said she was troubled someone forged both her signature and that of her husband, Jeff, and listed personal details such as their address and birthdays"

      Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12 … z1hkOFWP43

      No... no fraud round here... duh!

      And take careful note of who it is committing it in 99% of the cases... if not 100%

      And PS; We have News stations and other sources of Media in this country... we do not need to get all our news from a few sites that you happen to read and consider gospel.

  6. sunforged profile image68
    sunforgedposted 4 years ago

    I provided you with comprehensive resources, lets revisit:

    "Even at the time, there was no evidence to back up such outlandish claims. A major probe by the Justice Department between 2002 and 2007 failed to prosecute a single person for going to the polls and impersonating an eligible voter, which the anti-fraud laws are supposedly designed to stop. Out of the 300 million votes cast in that period, federal prosecutors convicted only 86 people for voter fraud – and many of the cases involved immigrants and former felons who were simply unaware of their ineligibility. A much-hyped investigation in Wisconsin, meanwhile, led to the prosecution of only .0007 percent of the local electorate for alleged voter fraud. "Our democracy is under siege from an enemy so small it could be hiding anywhere," joked Stephen Colbert. A 2007 report by the Brennan Center for Justice, a leading advocate for voting rights at the New York University School of Law, quantified the problem in stark terms. "It is more likely that an individual will be struck by lightning," the report calculated, "than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls."

    Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne … z1hkMvsMLQ

    The Brennan center was linked to in the OP - there is no known issue of at the polls fraud, most cases Ive discovered center around falsely created absentee ballots (obviously)

    Dont ask me if I see the difference - at this point, you are coming off like my little son in regards to comprehension skills, awareness and research abilities. So, Son, watch your mouth until you figure out how read or research effectively ... and did you really just link to Fox news?

    Try again, Try harder:

    Here is a comprehensive overview (check their sources of course)

    http://www.alternet.org/news/153509/gop … e_in_2012?


    Bleed election administration budgets
    Intimidate Voter Reg Groups (read the LOWV site for a comprehensive overview)
    eliminate same day registration
    eliminate early voting

    The plan to disenfranchise is evident and strategic. That is not in question.

    Since the Photo ID aspect is being harped on .. for me, a new ID isnt so tedious - the local DMV is open all weekdays and on Saturday.

    But, my experience isnt the same as everyone elses - there are areas where the DMV is open ONE DAY A MONTH -

    http://progressivetoo.com/2011/07/23/wi … districts/


    When in one breath,one says you will now need a photo id and in the next breath, you say we are closing down the places that will provide you with one ...

    is that more clear?

    1. TMMason profile image74
      TMMasonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      "Our democracy is under siege from an enemy so small it could be hiding anywhere,"

      There is your problem... you are under the mis-guided opinion that we are a democracy.

      We are not a democracy... we are a Republic.

      You follow the rules you can vote. if not... do not bother coming to the polls.

      Simple as that.

      And you huff'n and puff'n about no fraud doesn't change the fact that there is fraud.

      1. sunforged profile image68
        sunforgedposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You took one small quote from Colbert, I am not Colbert. If you wanted to play semantics, the US is very much in practice a representative democracy or a democratic republic. both which are forms of a republic. None of this is very relevant.

        The facts are as shown by the DOJ - that voter fraud at the polls is a non-issue.

        Voting Fraud is rampant but it is performed at the admin level.

        Again, not relevant. (at least recent legislation is not directed towards correcting it)

        The orchestrated campaign to place boundaries to the electoral process will effect millions. You think thats ok?

        Im not Huffn and puffn .. this is all new "news" to me. But, if you are to refute the sources provided I do expect to see some alternative sources of information.

      2. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Oh Tom, Tom, Tom, so naive!

        Of course there is voter fraud, but not a lot, and do you believe that it is all carried out by one side whilst the other side is pure as the driven snow? No, of course you don't, for every fraudulent vote cast by a Democrat you can be sure there is one cast by a Republican.

        Tightening up voter registration will hit legitimate voters far harder than it will hit fraudulent voters thereby making fraud more of an issue, not less.

        1. TMMason profile image74
          TMMasonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          John, how have you been friend o mine?

          No John I do not believe that it is all carried out by democrats, but most is.

          And to think we shouldn't make a law against something criminal because it might be harder for the law abiding citizen, is a whaked out argument.

          You may not have much fraud over there... but we do have it here. No matter how much the Left tries to down play the issue. When will you citizens of the world realize you cannot trust the coorperate media complex?

          Oh never mind, John.

          I forgot... you all cannot even grasp the truth of ole Adolf and his Socialist NAZIs. I mean if you cannot set aside the propaganda and lies as to that... then what hope is there for you all to see the truth of this issue.So I shouldn't expect any on the Left to grasp the seriousness of allowing our elections to be minipulated by fraud.

          The Left has been supporting lies and denying the truth for so long that it is ingrained in thier charactor make-ups. Sad.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I'm well, as I hope you are.

            Why do you believe most fraud is carried out by the Democrats?

            And surely a law that makes life harder for the law abiding whilst doing little or nothing to deter the dishonest is a bad law?

            Actions speak louder than words and there is no truer example of that than Hitler who demonstrated by his every move that he was no socialist, but still, I understand how it must rankle to know that such a barbarian had so much in common with your beliefs.
            I think your slur against the left is rich in the light of your indoctrination regarding Hitler and the left.

            1. TMMason profile image74
              TMMasonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              First lets address this once and for all.

              What do you consider Hitler? Ideology wise?

              Would you agree he was a Fascist?

              And the law is needed here, John.

              Well since the Left screams he was a fascist then they should really understand that he was a Socialist.


              The Concise Encyclopedia of Economic;

              As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer . The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.

              Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

              Fascism is to be distinguished from interventionism, or the mixed economy. Interventionism seeks to guide the market process, not eliminate it, as fascism did. Minimum-wage and antitrust laws, though they regulate the free market, are a far cry from multiyear plans from the Ministry of Economics.

              Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.” The consequent burdening of manufacturers gave advantages to foreign firms wishing to export. But since government policy aimed at autarky, or national self-sufficiency, protectionism was necessary: imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically. Fascism was thus incompatible with peace and the international division of labor—hallmarks of liberalism.

              Fascism embodied corporatism, in which political representation was based on trade and industry rather than on geography. In this, fascism revealed its roots in syndicalism, a form of socialism originating on the left. The government cartelized firms of the same industry, with representatives of labor and management serving on myriad local, regional, and national boards—subject always to the final authority of the dictator’s economic plan. Corporatism was intended to avert unsettling divisions within the nation, such as lockouts and union strikes. The price of such forced “harmony” was the loss of the ability to bargain and move about freely.

              To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation. While many of these projects were domestic—roads, buildings, stadiums—the largest project of all was militarism, with huge armies and arms production.

              The fascist leaders’ antagonism to communism has been misinterpreted as an affinity for capitalism. In fact, fascists’ anticommunism was motivated by a belief that in the collectivist milieu of early-twentieth-century Europe, communism was its closest rival for people’s allegiance. As with communism, under fascism, every citizen was regarded as an employee and tenant of the totalitarian, party-dominated state. Consequently, it was the state’s prerogative to use force, or the threat of it, to suppress even peaceful opposition.

              If a formal architect of fascism can be identified, it is Benito Mussolini, the onetime Marxist editor who, caught up in nationalist fervor, broke with the left as World War I approached and became Italy’s leader in 1922. Mussolini distinguished fascism from liberal capitalism in his 1928 autobiography:

              The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity. The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill. (p. 280)

              Before his foray into imperialism in 1935, Mussolini was often praised by prominent Americans and Britons, including Winston Churchill, for his economic program.

              Similarly, Adolf Hitler, whose National Socialist (Nazi) Party adapted fascism to Germany beginning in 1933, said:

              The state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property. (Barkai 1990, pp. 26–27)

              Both nations exhibited elaborate planning schemes for their economies in order to carry out the state’s objectives. Mussolini’s corporate state “consider[ed] private initiative in production the most effective instrument to protect national interests” (Basch 1937, p. 97). But the meaning of “initiative” differed significantly from its meaning in a market economy. Labor and management were organized into twenty-two industry and trade “corporations,” each with Fascist Party members as senior participants. The corporations were consolidated into a National Council of Corporations; however, the real decisions were made by state agencies such as the Instituto per la Ricosstruzione Industriale, which held shares in industrial, agricultural, and real estate enterprises, and the Instituto Mobiliare, which controlled the nation’s credit.

              Hitler’s regime eliminated small corporations and made membership in cartels mandatory.1 The Reich Economic Chamber was at the top of a complicated bureaucracy comprising nearly two hundred organizations organized along industry, commercial, and craft lines, as well as several national councils. The Labor Front, an extension of the Nazi Party, directed all labor matters, including wages and assignment of workers to particular jobs. Labor conscription was inaugurated in 1938. Two years earlier, Hitler had imposed a four-year plan to shift the nation’s economy to a war footing. In Europe during this era, Spain, Portugal, and Greece also instituted fascist economies.

              In the United States, beginning in 1933, the constellation of government interventions known as the New Deal had features suggestive of the corporate state. The National Industrial Recovery Act created code authorities and codes of practice that governed all aspects of manufacturing and commerce. The National Labor Relations Act made the federal government the final arbiter in labor issues. The Agricultural Adjustment Act introduced central planning to farming. The object was to reduce competition and output in order to keep prices and incomes of particular groups from falling during the Great Depression.

              It is a matter of controversy whether President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal was directly influenced by fascist economic policies. Mussolini praised the New Deal as “boldly . . . interventionist in the field of economics,” and Roosevelt complimented Mussolini for his “honest purpose of restoring Italy” and acknowledged that he kept “in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman.” Also, Hugh Johnson, head of the National Recovery Administration, was known to carry a copy of Raffaello Viglione’s pro-Mussolini book, The Corporate State, with him, presented a copy to Labor Secretary Frances Perkins, and, on retirement, paid tribute to the Italian dictator.


              About the Author
              Sheldon Richman is the editor of The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty at the Foundation for Economic Education in Irvingtonon-Hudson, N.Y.


              Further Reading
              Barkai, Avraham. Nazi Economics: Ideology, Theory, and Policy. Trans. Ruth Hadass-Vashitz. Oxford: Berg Publishers Ltd., 1990.
              Basch, Ernst. The Fascist: His State and His Mind. New York: Morrow, 1937.
              Diggins, John P. Mussolini and Fascism: The View from America. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972.
              Flynn, John T. As We Go Marching. 1944. Reprint. New York: Free Life Editions, 1973.
              Flynn, John T. The Roosevelt Myth. New York: Devin-Adair, 1948.
              Laqueur, Walter, ed. Fascism: A Reader’s Guide. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976.
              Mises, Ludwig von. Omnipotent Government. New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House, 1944.
              Mussolini, Benito. Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions. Firenze: Vallecchi, 1935.
              Mussolini, Benito. My Autobiography. New York: Scribner’s, 1928.
              Pitigliani, Fauto. The Italian Corporative State. New York: Macmillan, 1934.
              Powell, Jim. FDR’s Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression. New York: Crown Forum, 2003.
              Shirer, William L. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1960.
              Twight, Charlotte. America’s Emerging Fascist Economy. New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House, 1975.


              1. “Laws decreed in October 1937 simply dissolved all corporations with a capital under $40,000 and forbade the establishment of new ones with a capital less than $20,000” (Shirer 1959, p. 262).


              And that settles that, John.

              But I am syre you will attempt to scream this is incorrect.

              But the fact remains, Hitler was a great Marxist, a Socialist from hell in all reallity.

              He would make an excellent modern day liberal.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yes of course he was a fascist and like all other fascists, of the right, not the left.

                That was a sneaky edit Tom.

                1. TMMason profile image74
                  TMMasonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  There is absolutely no edit in that post.

                  Go to the link and read the entry... it is word for word, verbatim,... no edits what so ever.

                  I do not play that game, John.

                  And I am insulted you think I would.

                  I posted it verbatim, in whole, simply to avoid that accusation.

                  And yes the extreme right of the Socialists are Fascists.


              2. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Funny then that Hitler, like all fascists was opposed to Marxism.

                1. TMMason profile image74
                  TMMasonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  He was oppossed to certain "sects" or "schools" of Marxist theorism, that is true. But he did not hate, "Marxists", just those that were not his kind of Marxist.

                  You Socialists have been fighting among yourselves forever.

                  And there is absolutely no edit on that post above... follow the link. i posted it verbatim, in whole.

                  As I said... you will try to deny it.

      3. 61
        geordmcposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        How about having to follow rules you voted against?  Or maybe didn't vote for at all because they passed it without a vote?

  7. sunforged profile image68
    sunforgedposted 4 years ago

    You keep wanting to make it a left/right issue. It is not. It is an attack on the entire system. Sure the strategy is being implemented in GOP controlled areas but ... that can be put aside.

    Do you refute that this is currently happening? Do you accept that the rationale for the limitations is a pure defense against at the poll voter  fraud (which no one has found to be occurring)?

    How do you feel about requiring widget A then closing the resource that provides widget A?

    You dont smell the stink? really!

    1. couturepopcafe profile image60
      couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I would imagine if the ID requirement became law, there would be setups for people to get them for at least a certain amount of time.  Of course there will always be those who don't go get one then complain and cry voter supression the day before an election.

  8. Pcunix profile image89
    Pcunixposted 4 years ago

    I woud just like to point out that the type of voter fraud easiest to commit involves identifying yourself as someone who has not and will not vote.

    Instead of making those who WANT to vote carry identification, why don't we require those who don't want to vote to register as non-voters?

    1. Pcunix profile image89
      Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'm quite serious about this, by the way.

      Why would our resident Right Wingers object to this?

      1. TMMason profile image74
        TMMasonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Wanting to vote is not a qualification.

        Being a citizen is.

        1. Pcunix profile image89
          Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That doesn't answer my question.  Your typical misdirection attempts don't change the fact that my idea would eliminate fraud more effectively than requiring id's.

          1. TMMason profile image74
            TMMasonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Your plan does not negate the need for IDs. It simply means we have to ID to verify you are not on the no-vote list.

            So no, it would not solve the problem.

            1. Pcunix profile image89
              Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              No, it does not.

              Just as you go to your town now to register to vote when you move there, you'd register as a non-voter.

              Oh, of course people too lazy to vote would be too lazy to register to NOT vote.  But we could FORCE them, just like you want to force people to get ID's now.

              1. TMMason profile image74
                TMMasonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yes and just as they check to see you are that registered voter with an ID.... they would have to do the same for the non-voters.

                They would have to check the IDs at the poll to be sure you are not on the no-vote list, instead of the can-vote list.

                I think you are confusing yourself, PC.

                I have both a Voter ID card and a State ID.

                I see no reason everyone cannot follow the same rules I do.

                1. Pcunix profile image89
                  Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Indeed.  I'd just rather put the onus on those who won't vote rather than those who do.

                  But we all know that this is really about disenfranchising the poor, so you are always going to favor that.

                  My way doesn't disenfranchise anyone except by their own choice - which they are free to revoke - and prevents the fraud that worries you so much.

                  1. TMMason profile image74
                    TMMasonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    It would be the people sshowing up to vote that would have to be checked to see if they are on the no-vote list.

                    I do not get why you do not get that, PC.

                    "My way doesn't disenfranchise anyone except by their own choice"

                    Niether does the law.

                    You choose not to get an ID.

                    You do not vote.


                    I know you all want to make this about race, (even though you all use your code word "poor"),... but it is not.

                  2. couturepopcafe profile image60
                    couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You can't be serious.  Their complaining about getting IDs to vote and you think they'll go for getting IDs to abstain from voting?  Besides, there will always be some subgroup that forgot they were abstainees and will later want to vote who will cry voter supression because they forgot to re-establish their voting right.

  9. sunforged profile image68
    sunforgedposted 4 years ago

    Irrelevant -

    Kindly delete the wall of worthless plagiarized text and move along

    1. TMMason profile image74
      TMMasonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No. I won't.

      And it is not plagiarized.

      It is a cut and paste from an Encyclopedia, it is perfectly legitimate to use in any way.

      plagiarism is a whole nother thing.

      The act of appropriating the literary composition of another author, or excerpts, ideas, or passages therefrom, and passing the material off as one's own creation.


      Legal definition of plagiarism...

      Plagiarism; is theft of another person's writings or ideas. Generally, it occurs when someone steals expressions from another author's composition and makes them appear to be his own work. Plagiarism is not a legal term; however, it is often used in lawsuits. Courts recognize acts of plagiarism as violations of Copyright law, specifically as the theft of another person's Intellectual Property. Because copyright law allows a variety of creative works to be registered as the property of their owners, lawsuits alleging plagiarism can be based on the appropriation of any form of writing, music, and visual images.

      I used the excerpt and noted it with link to original, and in no way did I claim it to be my work.

      So go insult someone else.

  10. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago

    Keeping Students From the Polls
    Published: December 26, 2011    NY Times Editorial
    Next fall, thousands of students on college campuses will attempt to register to vote and be turned away. Sorry, they will hear, you have an out-of-state driver’s license. Sorry, your college ID is not valid here. Sorry, we found out that you paid out-of-state tuition, so even though you do have a state driver’s license, you still can’t vote.
    The Loyal Opposition

    Political leaders should be encouraging young adults to participate in civic life, but many Republican state lawmakers are doing everything they can instead to prevent students from voting in the 2012 presidential election. Some have openly acknowledged doing so because students tend to be liberal.

    Seven states have already passed strict laws requiring a government-issued ID (like a driver’s license or a passport) to vote, which many students don’t have, and 27 others are considering such measures. Many of those laws have been interpreted as prohibiting out-of-state driver’s licenses from being used for voting.

    It’s all part of a widespread Republican effort to restrict the voting rights of demographic groups that tend to vote Democratic. Blacks, Hispanics, the poor and the young, who are more likely to support President Obama, are disproportionately represented in the 21 million people without government IDs. On Friday, the Justice Department, finally taking action against these abuses, blocked the new voter ID law in South Carolina.

    Republicans usually don’t want to acknowledge that their purpose is to turn away voters, especially when race is involved, so they invented an explanation, claiming that stricter ID laws are necessary to prevent voter fraud. In fact, there is almost no voter fraud in America to prevent.

    William O’Brien, the speaker of the New Hampshire State House, told a Tea Party group earlier this year that students are “foolish” and tend to “vote their feelings” because they lack life experience. “Voting as a liberal,” he said, “that’s what kids do.” And that’s why, he said, he supported measures to prohibit students from voting from their college addresses and to end same-day registration. New Hampshire Republicans even tried to pass a bill that would have kept students who previously lived elsewhere from voting in the state; fortunately, the measure failed, as did the others Mr. O’Brien favored.

    Many students have taken advantage of Election Day registration laws, which is one reason Maine Republicans passed a law eliminating the practice. Voters restored it last month, but Republican lawmakers there are already trying new ways to restrict voting. The secretary of state said he was investigating students who are registered to vote in the state but pay out-of-state tuition.

    Wisconsin once made it easy for students to vote, making it one of the leading states in turnout of younger voters in 2004 and 2008. When Republicans swept into power there last year, they undid all of that, imposing requirements that invalidated the use of virtually all college ID cards in voter registration. Colleges are scrambling to change their cards to add signatures and expiration dates, but it’s not clear whether the state will let them.

    Imposing these restrictions to win an election will embitter a generation of students in its first encounter with the machinery of democracy.
    A version of this editorial appeared in print on December 27, 2011, on page A18 of the New York edition with the headline: Keeping Students From the Polls.

    1. couturepopcafe profile image60
      couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Some of this is your subjective opinion of Republicans, Ralph.  And boohoo, students need to get IDs.  Didn't we all at one time or another need to go out and get IDs?  College students are notorious for being embittered against the status quo.  And same day registration is absurdly liberal and dangerous to the system.

  11. rebekahELLE profile image91
    rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago

    here's another link to RS http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/bl … e-20111214

    I don't have time to comment further but after reading some of these posts, it's pretty clear some of you aren't following what's behind all of this, it's certainly more than voter fraud and id's.

    1. couturepopcafe profile image60
      couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      "...convicted only 86 people for alleged fraud – out of 300 million votes cast during that period."

      What's wrong with this clip from the above link? How many people live in the US according to the census? Could they have been counting one person's vote multiplied by the number of seats available for which that person voted?  I can't think of any other way they got 300 million votes if there are only 300 million U.S citizens, including all children.

  12. 61
    geordmcposted 4 years ago

    @ coturepopcafe
    You are required to carry I.D. at ALL times in case the gestapo(law enforcement) wish to see it and make sure you are who you sat you are. At least in my state. My state also have photo I.D. only cards, EVERY citizen is REQUIRED to carry some form of identification at all times!

    1. Reality Bytes profile image93
      Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Could you source the Law for me please?  I am very interested in the subject.  I am not saying you are wrong but in all my searching I have failed to find a single American Law that requires a person walking on public or private party to be in possession of an Identification.

      It would help me make the case for the existence of the Police State.  I have been researching this subject for the past few weeks.  I would like to cite exactly this sort of Law in one of my hubs.

      Not a Law requiring a License to engage in a legal activity.  A Law that says I cannot travel through your State on foot unless I am In possession of such documentation.

      1. 61
        geordmcposted 4 years ago in reply to this
        1. Reality Bytes profile image93
          Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, you must verbally identify yourself to a Peace Officer.  This can be done orally and would be a crime to misrepresent yourself as someone you are not.

          The mandatory possession of proof of your identity is non-existent.

          I have another hub concerning Rights when stopped by a Law enforcement officer.  I am also working on a hub concerning this exact question.  Do you have to identify yourself to a Police Officer.

    2. couturepopcafe profile image60
      couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      geord - New Jersey has the same law or at least it did when I was living there.  I can't find the law.

      1. Reality Bytes profile image93
        Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You struck my curiosity and I searched quite awhile before posting to your comment.

      2. 61
        geordmcposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It's more of a statute

        1. Reality Bytes profile image93
          Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Codes and statutes are not Law and are only enforceable against your corporate identity.  YOUR NAME in capital letters.  This is a fictional entity as is the entities that make these claims in Court.

          If the human being requires the Judge to admit that it is in fact a human being standing before them, then statutes and codes are irrelevant.  If the State of California brings claims against you as a human being then upon trial the prosecution will have to produce your accuser before you to be questioned.

          Since the State of California is not a real entity, the case will be dismissed.  It is upon plea bargains that the States end around this situation.

          1. couturepopcafe profile image60
            couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I did some more research on this and found that the Supreme Court ruled all vagrancy laws as unconstitutional due to, ironically, the vague nature in which they were written and found them to be detrimental to interstate commerce.  I guess now cities and counties have loitering laws as well as curfews for teens.  That makes it easier to spot real potential threats to communities by someone who might have unscrupulous intentions.

  13. 61
    geordmcposted 4 years ago

    Good to know! Thanks R.B.

    1. Druid Dude profile image60
      Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Disenfranchisement is not the answer. Voter and polling place security is where we should go. Many banks require a thumbprint to cash a check. Everything is wired, why not use the tech now existing. With these maneuvers to take the vote away from some is a direct attack on the entire system, an attack which should not go on.

      1. couturepopcafe profile image60
        couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I agree thumbprints could be the way to go.  No chance of deception there.  It wouldn't take any more time than getting an ID but might cost the states in time and money.

        1. TMMason profile image74
          TMMasonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I do not see that flying.

          it is wholey unreasonable to take my prints for voting or checks.

          Why should the govt. be allowed to negate the fourth amendment so i can excersize my right to vote.

          Nope... it won't fly.

          1. couturepopcafe profile image60
            couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Personally, I see it as the easiest way to get all things done, not just voting.  Anything that will make my life easier.  We wouldn't need to carry any documents at all, it would work for medical, driving, banks, voting, getting back into the country.  Surely, even if you don't like this idea, you see the necessity to somehow tighten up voting.

            1. TMMason profile image74
              TMMasonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I agree on every point of that... but it won't fly. the libertarians and Conservatives would hit the roof.

              including me.

              There are other less obtrusive ways to handle it.

  14. Pandoras Box profile image81
    Pandoras Boxposted 4 years ago

    Just wanted to bring up purging of the voter rolls, under various pretenses. Miss a single election in many places, and you're automatically unregistered, with little or no notification or opportunity to declare. This has all been news in progressive and democratic circles for some months now, at least, to answer the question somewhat. I can't really speak for mainstream media, not sure.