Freedom and democracy-hating liberal leftist Marxists’ all-out attack against America, which is intensifying as they are now firing at will at American values, traditions, and dignity.
They are trying various strikes, and sounding out various potential weak spots.
In one such especially striking attempt, leftist propaganda flagship, The New York Times published an op-ed by a guest author named Atossa Araxia Abrahamian, who has the cheek to argue that “there is no good reason” why only US citizens are allowed to vote in American elections.
The insanity of the wokeist, transgenderist malicious Marxists are now going after the most basic democratic notions since the time democracy was first perfected in Ancient Greece – namely, that a nation’s fate is decided through democratic elections by its own citizens – not by anybody else such as its enemies who want to see it destroyed.
Yet, now an individual named Atossa Araxia Abrahamian through the NYT leftist propaganda mouthpiece is proposing just that.
The idea is so stupefyingly absurd that the Marxists are putting it forth on purpose because it might cause a stupor on part of any decent, thinking, honest person, not just in the United States but anywhere on earth.
Luckily, conservative commentator Dinesh D’Souza has stepped up to beat down the ugly Marxist head stretching its bony arm to grab hold of Americans’ right to vote.
“No good reason” not to let non-citizens vote!?
Commenting on his podcast on the NYT piece by Abrahamian, who appears to be a US resident, i.e. a Green Card holder, D’Souza first had a good laugh that the former isn’t even speaking of supposed arguments for non-citizens to vote in American elections but goes even further by brazenly suggesting in her title that there is “no good reason” why they shouldn’t.
D’Souza then deconstructs the guest authors’ laughable arguments for allowing “just about anybody” to vote in the elections of the United States of America.
The wokeist Marxist author argues that this would “give American democracy new life”.
Imagine that… by burying it – so maybe she means an afterlife?
The second “good reason” is that such a step would supposedly “restore immigrants’ trust in government” – as though the primary job of the US government should be to care what immigrants think of it.
Dinesh D’Souza first sets the record straight about the meaning of the word “immigrant” because it actually refers to naturalized citizens, and not even to the “illegals” crossing the US-Mexican border.
‘Send a message of inclusion to the world’ – ‘WHY!?!’
Abrahamian argues that allowing non-citizens – meaning whoever, anybody – to vote in the United States would “send a powerful message of inclusion” to the entire world.
D’Souza can’t help but exclaim taken aback by unimaginable bewilderment.
He questions whether the rest of the world would be impressed that you can be Haitian or Pakistani or Brazilian and vote in America – at most, the rest of the world would mock America tremendously for its self-destruction.
D’Souza asks, however, if that “powerful inclusion message” is the case, why aren’t all people, non-citizens, allowed to vote in India, or any other democratic country in the world?
Why is there an expectation that the American democracy would operate differently from any other democracy?
The answer is that they – the Marxists – want to cower and shame it into submission and destroy it – but D’Souza doesn’t go here but continues his own line of rebuttal to the insane NYT essay.
He notes that the author of the op-ed argues that some towns in America such as Takoma Park, Maryland, actually allow non-citizens to vote in local elections, and that – Democrat-run cities, no surprises there – such as New York City, Chicago, Portland, and Washington, DC – are considering the same idea.
Why the Democrats never call for direct democracy
D’Souza then destroys the basic suggestion from the left that it’s better to ultimately expand the franchise, and that democracy is better if more people have a greater say in it.
He asks, however, why in that case we even have a representative democracy at all, and why don’t all 360 million people in the US directly participate in voting through technology all the time since that is now possible.
That would be direct democracy in action, and there won’t be a need for elected officials – but Democrats haven’t even proposed considering that option.
D’Souza then stresses the biggest reason why we have a representative democracy, and which is the same reason why the NYT essay proposal makes no sense: because representative democracy sets up a higher standard for government
The idea is that ordinary citizen isn’t wise enough to make decisions on behalf of the whole country but is only wise enough to choose citizens wiser than himself or herself and entrust them with making decisions in our stead, the conservative commentator points out.
He added that was also the reason why the founding fathers believed the franchise should be limited to adults and also put forth a property requirement – not because they were elitist or racist but because it was also intended to limit the franchise to people who had a stake in the system.
In other words, D’Souza explained, if you were just a freeloader off the system you wouldn’t have any stake in maintaining fiscal responsibility, and you’d be there as just as a looter.
You’re just there to help yourself to the public trove – why do you want people like that making decision on how the trove should be handled? D’Souza asked.
The same logic goes against allowing just anybody to vote in a country’s elections, which is why only citizens are allowed to.
All about giving the Democratic Party a long-term advantage
D’Souza emphasizes that although the Democrats keep saying, “the more voters, the better”, and “Let’s expand the franchise,” they never say why.
He, however, exposes their main reason: that if you let more younger people vote, more illegals vote, or illegals become citizens and then vote, or let non-citizens vote, that is going to benefit the Democratic Party – and “that’s all” that “we need to know.”
Even Abrahamian shamelessly admits it in her NYT op-ed: that the Democrats will likely be “the biggest beneficiaries” of such a change.
So D’Souza concludes by stating that Abrahamian’s arguments for giving non-citizens the right to vote aren’t at all about democracy – “none of this is what it’s about” – it’s about a crass move attempting to give long-term advantage to the Democratic Party.