Archive | October 26, 2014

In 1977 an International Group of Experts Asked if Ebola was ‘Real’*

In 1977 an International Group of Experts Asked if Ebola was ‘Real’*

This same question has been asked by citizens from the countries with the ‘infection’…

By Felicia Popescu, Dr. Sircus

In order to understand the true background to the present and past “Ebola” epidemics, the following booklet from a colloquim held in 1977 is recommended for further personal study. It contains the collective proceedings of 3-day meeting between a large international group of members from the medical and science community also from the WHO which co-sponsored the colloquium held in 1977 in Belgium.

“Ebola Virus Haemorrhagic Fever” ( )

Pieces of an extraordinary puzzle unfold already on the first 180 pages:

Special Note from Dr. Sircus: In answer to the question Is Ebola Real? The best answer is we cannot be sure. If we do not know where it came from and we are not sure about the tests that test for it how do we really know if it is real? There are many doubts about Ebola though there is no doubt that the world health ministries as well as the press are having a field day doing what they love to do and that is to scare the living daylights out of the public. I am looking deeply into these questions and have been asked to publish this essay by Felicia Popescu.

  1. No “Ebola” virus has ever been isolated!

    a) The only “tests” performed back then were epidemiological surveys. As always, these so-called tests only showed indirect “proof” of the assumed “virus” (pp. 75, 76, 77 are very interesting in this respect!).

    Attempts to isolate the “virus” (as described in detail on p. 112) uncover the broad deception particularly well: First, they admit that “no really satisfactory serological test has yet been devised to detect and quantify antibodies against either Marburg or Ebola viruses. Not even the antibody test was “reliable” as “crude antigens” had previously been injected into guinea pigs and monkeys only to be “redetected” later in the so-called “indirect immunofluorescence test” (!!); they went on to state that “no really obvious cytopathogenic changes can be readily visualized in any of the cell culture systems used so far although Johnson et al have claimed that some cytopathic changes are discernible in vero cells” (!!); ignoring their own hypothesis that antibodies are proof of the existence of a virus, it was declared (just like they do with “asymptomatic or subclinical infections” also claimed when they find no antibodies after vaccinations) that even patients without antibodies were nevertheless “infected” due to symptoms such as “febrile illnesses” and haemorrhages. In the preconceived minds and despite the very inconclusive results from these highly controversial methodologies only a “pathogenic virus” could be at the root of all symptoms.

    b) K. M. Johnson makes the following comment on p. 139: “Looking for something in nature, it is more easy, on a numerical basis, at any time to find evidence of antibodies against infection than it is to isolate the agent itself in the individual animal“; of course one has to assume that Mr Johnson didn’t know that no one had ever isolated or documented the pathogen which was delivered to him and against which he tested for antibodies!

    c) On p. 141 it is reported that just 17% of the acutely ill people had such antibodies (again measured only by the indirect fluorescent technique) and some people “with or without contact with a case of haemorrhagic fever and no symptoms” were also tested “positive“!

    In other words, of the severely ill, only 17% had the antibodies which are considered a proof surrogate for the virus and 83% of the Ebola “diagnosed” did not carry the antibodies as means for evidence of the virus. At the same time these antibodies were also found in people having no symptoms at all. So the results clearly do not support the supposition, the existence of a pathogen, but in fact were even absolutely counter-indicative. Still, all the experts blamed the “virus” for the symptoms.

    d) On p. 143 K.M. Johnson surprisingly reaches a quite reasonable conclusion: “It is clear to us that the more work you do with the FA-test, the more interesting, the more complicated complicated and the more biologically sloppy the results become.

    e) On p. 180 the authors of the paper on the classification of the so-called “arboviruses” gratefully acknowledge the provision of the “viruses” used for testing (for which there is no proof whatsoever that they had ever before been isolated or photographed or biochemically described): “Viruses were kindly provided by Dr. Yves Robin, Director of Pasteur Institute of Dakar, Robert E. Shope, Director of Yale Arbovirus Research Unit, James D. Converse, U.S. Naval Medical Research Unit, Dr. Brunhilde, Kupper University of Cologne, Dr. Pierre Sureau, Pasteur Institute, Paris.

    f) On p. 192 there is another paper about “isolation”, this time of the famous Lassa “virus”, which they apparently isolated from rodents (Mastomys natalensis), except they didn’t, because there is also a note saying that “antigens were supplied by the CDC (Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, USA), as lyophilized betapropiolactone (BPL) inactivated Vero tissue culture propagated Lassa virus“.

    Seeing that what they tested with were only artefacts of cell culture that they had been previously provided with in the first place and never isolated themselves from genetic material of “infected” patients, it’s time to join the German biologist Dr. Stefan Lanka in asking the absolute begging questions:

Where do the original proteins, these antigens, come from?

Where were they isolated from?

Where was the “isolation” published??

Where was the control group?

Since the answer to all these questions is, in fact, nowhere, the propagated Ebola virus hypothesis does not live up to even basic scientific standards. Technically speaking it is a showcase example of a circular argument which is the common modus operandi of modern virology as the very basis of almost all of today’s medical vaccination campaigns.

2. Barbarous animal testing

The atrocious experiments performed on guinea pigs and monkeys, during which the animals were INJECTED intraperitoneally (into the abdominal cavity) with the suspected “virus concoction” (what a perfect way to imitate the “natural” infection, isn’t it?) are simply unbelievable – just reading about them makes your flesh crawl; the “scientists” who had performed the experiments then coolly stated that “no animal survived the INFECTION” (“infection” or MURDER??) (pp. 79-80, p. 109-110); it makes your hair stand on end!

3. Epidemics always started in hospitals

Most epidemics had hospitals as points of origin! Below, a few examples.

a) On p. 94 they state: “People in the community had already associated the mission hospital with the epidemic and had stopped coming to the outpatient department” (!!);

b) On p. 95 they state: “This epidemic was also associated with a hospital.

c) On p. 105 there is a description of three cases of patients who died in hospital; the third patient died “after several short stays in hospital“; it would be interesting to know what medication he received, but here, again, we see that from the point of view of the experts, only the “virus” must be at fault.

d) On p. 106 they stated that “the main focus of infection appeared to have been the cotton factory“; one paragraph further down and the secret is revealed: “The cotton factory also has a small clinic room minor illnesses in the factory employees are treated. Injections of chloroquine [malaria medication] and occasionally antibiotics are given in this dispensary.

e) It goes on on p. 107: “Of the employees found seropositive […], approx. 50% would have had injections at the dispensary for their minor febrile illnesses” (exactly WHAT they were injected with is not specified).

f) On p. 116 it is explained that the “transmission” of the Ebola “virus” was “interrupted by the closure of Yambuku Hospital with cessation of giving injections” (relevant in this case seems to be rather the closure of the hospital and the discontinuation of all “treatments” – see 4. below)

4. People were more likely to be killed by the “prevention measures” and the “treatments”

a) In the hospitals, patients and sometimes the medical staff who then also became ill (…) were routinely treated with interferon, antimalarial treatment, chloramphenicol, other antibiotics, antipyretic agents etc.! (p. 86, p. 124)

b) In addition to the antimalarial medication, some patients also received “anti-typhoid drugs” (p. 98), whereupon they developed various “haemorrhagic events (epistaxis, haemoptysis, haematemesis, malaena), which in the context of their general condition and cachexia (cellular exhaustion) led to the breakdown of the entire organism. These obvious adverse effects of the medication were again attributed to the assumed virus!

c) The syringes and needles used “between patients” were also simply “washed in a pan of warm water” (p. 85). Apart from the mind-boggling hygienic standards in the medical centres, we have another proof that the patients were getting a lot of injections.

d) It is reported several times that many patients became ill as a result of “previous injections” (for example on p. 87). Exactly WHAT they were injected with, however, is, once again, never unveiled.

e) On p. 114 it says that “the outbreak became alarming when it was introduced into Maridi hospital.” (with “large outbreak among the medical staff” – you will find out why by reading a few lines below!) Another quote: “If it would not have spread to Maridi and Yambuku hospitals, no one would have remembered it. There has never been any outbreak like these before, because amplifying forces have not been there: a needle, an amazing remarkable social structure or a newly established teaching hospital where these kind of outbreaks can happen” (!!). And then comes the cherry on the cake: “During the epidemic in Maridi 13,914 doses of typhoid vaccine were administered“(!!) Remember the “haemorrhagic events” caused by the “anti-typhoid drugs” described in section (b), these are the classic symptoms ascribed to the supposed Ebola virus.

f) Also on p. 114, the author is surprised that in Sudan the mortality in patients admitted to hospitals increased from 25% in August to 44.6% in September and then to 70% in October, i.e. after the massive vaccination campaign had been launched in September!! However, here again, of course, the so-called “pathogenic virus” serves as a scapegoat for the huge leap of the mortality rate!

g) A certain D.P. Francis makes the following comment on p. 115: “We did our very best to administer the typhoid and gamma globulin injections. But actually very few doses were given, a lot of them in the hospital staff” (!!), “because they were at high risk“. And then they wonder why the nurses got ill and died as well and of course, once again – despite the fact that the nurses took precautionary measures when working with the patients – only the so-called “pathogenic virus” could be responsible!

h) On the same page, p.115, D.P. Francis says the following: “There were people infected in the hospitals, admitted initially for various diseases, who were treated in the hospitals, including injections [once again, exactly WHAT they were injected with is not mentioned!!] and who 5 to 7 days later came down with usually fatal disease.” Like before, no mentioning of what is was they injected.

i) Again on p. 115 M. Isaäcson comments: “The Maridi Hospital was a large teaching hospital and it was noted that the main victims were the student nurses” (remember that it was the medical staff in particular who were vaccinated!).

j) On p. 116 it says that a vaccination campaign with the typhoid vaccination was prescribed for all nursing staff (!!); we can therefore assume that that was common practice everywhere and vaccinations could be a significant factor as to why many nurses – who otherwise only had protected contact with patients – died in droves!!

k) On p. 117 it is described how the hospital staff and the population went crazy with panic and the investigative team had to come to the conclusion that the hospital “had a leading role in the spread of the disease” (!!).

l) The following is reported on p. 128 (brace yourself!) “Except for spraying of DDT (!!) in Maridi, Yambio and Nzara and limited vaccinations against yellow fever, none of the recommended control and preventive measures were carried out because nobody was made to stay and implement the measures in the affected area“. No wonder everyone fled when they started spraying DDT (poisonous pesticide) as a “prevention measure”!!

The subsequent symptoms due to heavy poisoning of the population were, once again, attributed to the “dreaded” virus.

5. Coercive “treatment” carried out by the WHO gestapo-style

a) Very relevant within the overall picture of this “epidemic” also seems to be the consistently “hostile” attitude of the local population vis-à-vis the “saviours” who were armed with protective suits and face masks!

b) On p. 116 it says: “There was no strict isolation of patients in Yambuku hospital and some of the patients ESCAPED (!) to go back and die in their villages.”

c) On p. 117 it is reported that the “contaminated” areas were blocked off and with the help of the military (!!) roadblocks were erected. Was the population right to be afraid of coercive “treatment”?

d) On p. 123 it is described how the houses and rooms of the dead people were completely fumigated with formaldehyde over FOUR consecutive days; the bodies were wrapped in cotton sheets impregnated with phenol; the subsequent symptoms of heavy poisoning in relatives or neighbours of the dead could of course, once again, only be related to the presumed “pathogenic virus”.

e) On p. 129 it says: “We knew there were more cases hidden in homes (!) than those brought to hospital. Because very few in-patients survived the disease [or the treatment!] and because health staff were also affected and killed by the disease [well, let’s not forget the many vaccinations!], panic had arisen resulting in the running away of some hospital patients and hiding of those who should have been brought to the hospital.” – It would seem that the poor Africans had noticed even back then that a stay in hospital was sure to lead to their deaths and they were quite rightly afraid of the “life-saving Western medicine”.

f) The “spread” of the disease was at its worst in Maridi (we haven’t forgotten: DDT had been sprayed as a “prevention measure” here!!).

g) On p. 129 it is reported that there were “detection teams” to whom the local authorities had given the right to access and search every house!!! Every house was searched by these “case detectors” who combed the area on foot, by bike or by car and “the epidemic Control Office sent an ambulance to collect patients and take them to the hospital” – Déjà-vu?

The German biologist dr. rer. nat. Stefan Lanka had already explained years ago that Ebola was in his opinion caused by various vaccine experiments carried out in Africa. During a lecture in 2001 he had explained that “cells are destroyed by radioactivity, even if they call it Ebola; it is the consequence of irradiation through genetic vaccinations. These people would bleed to death internally and externally. The feared Ebola virus on the other hand has yet to be found or isolated.

And once more dr. Stefan Lanka a few years ago: “All vaccination programmes in the third world are, from a scientific point of view, under the strongest suspicion of deliberate genocide, the decimation of the indigenous population away from the eyes of the world, even the so-called Ebola cases are in reality some of the worst vaccine-induced injuries, since in Africa they sometimes “work” with doses that are 1,000 times higher than in Europe and so these are more likely side effects of criminal human experiments.


The German Medical Review 118 of 29 June 2000 (Ärzte-Zeitung) had already admitted that vaccine doses with 100-1,000 higher concentrations than what is used in Europe had been given and had led to numerous deaths of African babies in the nineties.

Dr. Stefan Lanka commented on these “trials” naming them for what they were (or still are?) – secret genetic experiments on African people:

When you are poisoned with such a lethal doses, your liver stops creating the globulins needed for blood-clotting. You then start bleeding internally and externally, it is called hemorrhagic fever… and of course they are blaming it once more on a virus!


Related Topics:

Eugenics: The Genetic Engineering of Ebola in the 1980s*

U.S. Opposes Proven Cure for Ebola Confirmed by Sierra Leone*

Cuba Sends ‘Largest Medical Contingent to Liberia from any Country not Soldiers*

Nano-Silver Used in Eradicating Ebola in Nigeria Prevented from Reaching Liberia and Sierra Leone*

Research on Successful Ebola Drug Shut-down Two Weeks Before Proclaimed Outbreak*


Liberia: Ebola Vaccine Induced Fatalities and Formaldehyde Dumping in Water Wells*


In Ghana: Vaccine Induced Ebola*

I.R.S. Stealing Citizen’s Hard-earned Money*

I.R.S. Stealing Citizen’s Hard-earned Money*

By Shaila Dewan

Carole Hinders at her modest, cash-only Mexican restaurant in Arnolds Park, Iowa. Last year tax agents seized her funds. Credit Angela Jimenez for NYT

Carole Hinders at her modest, cash-only Mexican restaurant in Arnolds Park, Iowa. Last year tax agents seized her funds. Credit Angela Jimenez for NYT

For almost 40 years, Carole Hinders has dished out Mexican specialties at her modest cash-only restaurant. For just as long, she deposited the earnings at a small bank branch a block away — until last year, when two tax agents knocked on her door and informed her that they had seized her checking account, almost $33,000.

The Internal Revenue Service agents did not accuse Ms. Hinders of money laundering or cheating on her taxes — in fact, she has not been charged with any crime. Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than $10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report.

“How can this happen?” Ms. Hinders said in a recent interview. “Who takes your money before they prove that you’ve done anything wrong with it?”

The federal government does.

Using a law designed to catch drug traffickers, racketeers and terrorists by tracking their cash, the government has gone after run-of-the-mill business owners and wage earners without so much as an allegation that they have committed serious crimes. The government can take the money without ever filing a criminal complaint, and the owners are left to prove they are innocent. Many give up.

The I.R.S. seized almost $33,000 from Ms. Hinders. Angela Jimenez

“They’re going after people who are really not criminals,” said David Smith, a former federal prosecutor who is now a forfeiture expert and lawyer in Virginia.

“They’re middle-class citizens who have never had any trouble with the law.”

On Thursday, in response to questions from The New York Times, the I.R.S. announced that it would curtail the practice, focusing instead on cases where the money is believed to have been acquired illegally or seizure is deemed justified by “exceptional circumstances.”

Richard Weber, the chief of Criminal Investigation at the I.R.S., said in a written statement,

“This policy update will ensure that C.I. continues to focus our limited investigative resources on identifying and investigating violations within our jurisdiction that closely align with C.I.’s mission and key priorities.”

He added that making deposits under $10,000 to evade reporting requirements, called ‘structuring’, is still a crime whether the money is from legal or illegal sources. The new policy will not apply to past seizures.

The I.R.S. is one of several federal agencies that pursue such cases and then refer them to the Justice Department. The Justice Department does not track the total number of cases pursued, the amount of money seized or how many of the cases were related to other crimes, said Peter Carr, a spokesman.

But the Institute for Justice, a Washington-based public interest law firm that is seeking to reform civil forfeiture practices, analyzed structuring data from the I.R.S., which made 639 seizures in 2012, up from 114 in 2005. Only one in five was prosecuted as a criminal structuring case.

The practice has swept up dairy farmers in Maryland, an Army sergeant in Virginia saving for his children’s college education and Ms. Hinders, 67, who has borrowed money, strained her credit cards and taken out a second mortgage to keep her restaurant going.

Their money was seized under an increasingly controversial area of law known as civil asset forfeiture, which allows law enforcement agents to take property ‘they suspect’ of being tied to crime even if no criminal charges are filed. Law enforcement agencies get to keep a share of whatever is forfeited.

Critics say this incentive has led to the creation of a law enforcement dragnet, with more than 100 multiagency task forces combing through bank reports, looking for accounts to seize. Under the Bank Secrecy Act, banks and other financial institutions must report cash deposits greater than $10,000. But since many criminals are aware of that requirement, banks also are supposed to report any suspicious transactions, including deposit patterns below $10,000. Last year, banks filed more than 700,000 suspicious activity reports. Owners who are caught up in structuring cases often cannot afford to fight. The median amount seized by the I.R.S. was $34,000, according to the Institute for Justice analysis, while legal costs can easily mount to $20,000 or more.

There is nothing illegal about depositing less than $10,000cash unless it is done specifically to evade the reporting requirement. But often a mere bank statement is enough for investigators to obtain a seizure warrant. In one Long Island case, the police submitted almost a year’s worth of daily deposits by a business, ranging from $5,550 to $9,910. The officer wrote in his warrant affidavit that based on his training and experience, the pattern “is consistent with structuring.” The government seized $447,000 from the business, a cash-intensive candy and cigarette distributor that has been run by one family for 27 years.

There are often legitimate business reasons for keeping deposits below $10,000, said Larry Salzman, a lawyer with the Institute for Justice who is representing Ms. Hinders and the Long Island family pro bono. For example, he said, a grocery store owner in Fraser, Mich., had an insurance policy that covered only up to $10,000 cash. When he neared the limit, he would make a deposit.

Ms. Hinders said that she did not know about the reporting requirement and that for decades, she thought she had been doing everyone a favor.

Jeff Hirsch, an owner of Bi-County Distributors on Long Island. The government seized $447,000 from the business, a candy and cigarette distributor run by one family for 27 years. Credit Bryan Thomas for NYT

“My mom had told me if you keep your deposits under $10,000, the bank avoids paperwork,” she said.

“I didn’t actually think it had anything to do with the I.R.S.”

In May 2012, the bank branch Ms. Hinders used was acquired by Northwest Banker. JoLynn Van Steenwyk, the fraud and security manager for Northwest, said she could not discuss individual clients, but explained that the bank did not have access to past account histories after it acquired Ms. Hinders’s branch.

Banks are not permitted to advise customers that their deposit habits may be illegal or educate them about structuring unless they ask, in which case they are given a federal pamphlet, Ms. Van Steenwyk said.

“We’re not allowed to tell them anything,” she said.

Still lawyers say it is not unusual for depositors to be advised by financial professionals, or even bank tellers, to keep their deposits below the reporting threshold. In the Long Island case, the company, Bi-County Distributors, had three bank accounts closed because of the paperwork burden of its frequent cash deposits, said Jeff Hirsch, the eldest of three brothers who own the company. Their accountant then recommended staying below the limit, so for more than a decade the company had been using its excess cash to pay vendors.

More than two years ago, the government seized $447,000, and the brothers have been unable to retrieve it. Mr. Salzman, who has taken over legal representation of the brothers, has argued that prosecutors violated a strict timeline laid out in the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, passed in 2000 to curb abuses. The office of the federal attorney for the Eastern District of New York said the law’s timeline did not apply in this case. Still, prosecutors asked the Hirsch’s first lawyer, Joseph Potashnik, to waive the CARFA timeline. The waiver he signed expired almost two years ago.

The federal attorney’s office said that parties often voluntarily negotiated to avoid going to court, and that Mr. Potashnik had been engaged in talks until just a few months ago. But Mr. Potashnik said he had spent that time trying, to no avail, to show that the brothers were innocent. They even paid a forensic accounting firm $25,000 to check the books.

“I don’t think they’re really interested in anything,” Mr. Potashnik said of the prosecutors. “They just want the money.”

Bi-County has survived only because long-time vendors have extended credit — one is owed almost $300,000, Mr. Hirsch said. Twice, the government has made settlement offers that would require the brothers to give up an “excessive” portion of the money, according to a new court filing.

“We’re just hanging on as a family here,” Mr. Hirsch said.

“We weren’t going to take a settlement, because I was not guilty.”

Army Sgt. Jeff Cortazzo of Arlington, Va., began saving for his daughters’ college costs during the financial crisis, when many banks were failing. He stored cash first in his basement and then in a safe-deposit box. All of the money came from paychecks, he said, but he worried that when he deposited it in a bank, he would be forced to pay taxes on the money again. So he asked the bank teller what to do.

“She said: ‘Oh, that’s easy. You just have to deposit less than $10,000.’”

The government seized $66,000; settling cost Sergeant Cortazzo $21,000. As a result, the eldest of his three daughters had to delay college by a year.

“Why didn’t the teller tell me that was illegal?” he said.

“I would have just plopped the whole thing in the account and been done with it.”


Related Topics:

Is Income Tax Unconstitutional

Actor Wesley Snipes Freed After 3 Years for Refusing to be Taxed*

Cashless Society: Use Credit Cards at Your Peril*

Biometric Identification Control: What Will You Do?

You Pay more while Banks Profiteer in a Cashless Society…that’s the Convenience*

Tyranny of Taxation and Regulation without Representation*

Did You Know: US Gov’t Paid Reparations…To Slave Owners

The Next Step in Sequestrating Your Hard Earned Money

The Global Money Supply Flows in One Direction!

There’s No Money, but the Rich Got Richer By $1.9 Trillion

Sweden: Money Laundering and Emptying your Account Easier in Cashless Society*

Pay by Cheque via Smartphones, a Good Way to Lose Your Money*

Your Bank Account does not belong to you alone!*

Texas Invokes Discriminatory Voter Identification Law*

Texas Invokes Discriminatory Voter Identification Law*

By Mac Slavo

Last week the U.S. Supreme Court gave Texas the go-ahead to enforce voter identification laws at the polls. The court rejected an emergency request from the Justice Department and civil rights group to overturn the law with a majority of Justices on the court siding with Texas.

The move has liberals all over the country up in arms because the legislation opens the door for other states to move in lockstep with Texas.

Though the majority did not issue a statement, a dissenting opinion from liberal judges that included Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, says that the law is purposefully discriminatory.

“The greatest threat to public confidence in elections in this case is the prospect of enforcing a purposefully discriminatory law, one that likely imposes an unconstitutional poll tax and risks denying the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of eligible voters.”

At the Huffington Post, a liberal hotbed of progressive ideas, readers took to their keyboards to show their outrage over the new law.

The law, which allows for seven (7) different methods of identification at the polls, has been attacked, among other things, as an attempt to instill white rule over minorities:

College ID cards are not considered legitimate identification, while a concealed carry handgun licenses have been approved. Apparently, some liberal commentators don’t realize that a non-citizen can acquire a college ID if they attend school in the United States. A concealed handgun license however, requires a detailed background check… and citizenship, though some (LEGAL) resident aliens can acquire  a license under certain guidelines:

We agree, it’s certainly voter suppression if you are not a legal resident of the United States of America, and rightfully so.

And, of course, there’re those who claim this is a “poll tax” because it costs money to obtain an identification card to vote.

As it turns out, the aforementioned Texas Election Identification Certificate is free of charge, but yes, the poor and old do need to travel for it, just like they might have to travel to actually vote, go to the grocery store, seek health care or take money out of their bank.

And then there’s this guy, who suggests that this is about men versus women, because, well… we’re not really sure why:

And, of course, no liberal comment thread is complete without accusations of racism against those who want to ensure the legitimacy of the electoral process:

Now that you’ve read the blathering on about how this law is racist and disenfranchises poor people who apparently do not require identification to seek welfare, health care, food stamps or other government services, here are the facts.

These are the acceptable forms of identification at Texas polling stations. A precursory look at the list and you’ll realize that 99.9% of Americans of voting age have to have at least one of these to function on a daily basis:

  • Texas driver license issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS)
  • Texas Election Identification Certificate issued by DPS
  • Texas personal identification card issued by DPS
  • Texas concealed handgun license issued by DPS
  • United States military identification card containing the person’s photograph
  • United States citizenship certificate containing the person’s photograph
  • United States passport

And for those who complain of a polling tax, it turns out that the State of Texas has a web site page dedicated specifically for people who do not have the money to pay for an identification card.

In addition to the scores of comments claiming racism, poll taxing and other ridiculous arguments against the ID requirement, there were others who understood the purpose of the law, especially in a state that has seen illegal immigration skyrocket:

User Maggie Lin pretty much sums it up:

What do you think? Are voter ID laws designed to suppress the vote of poor people and minorities?

Or, is an identification requirement, given the millions of illegal immigrants making their way into the United States, a necessity in order to ensure the legitimacy of our elections?

Yes, we know, those are loaded questions.


helen keller and who really governs

Related Topics:

Why I am Leaving the U.S.*

Your Citizenship and Personal Sovereignty*

Personal Freedom, or My Freedom vs. Yours?*

U.S. Moving Closer to Changing the Constitution*

The First Bill of Rights Comes to Public Eye, as Human Rights Becomes Just a Concept!

The Three Hundred: Free Democratic US Elections – Did they ever Exist!*

12-Year Old Discovers Most Presidents Related to King John*

U.S. Policies, ‘Invading Contagious Aliens’ and Why Carolina and Daughters Walked 1,500 miles to Escape Rape*

Pro-Israelis Finance U.S. Police Training*

Question to Harvard Students, ISIS or the U.S. the Greatest Threat to World Peace*