Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for April, 2008


I am a citizen of the United States and take my PRIVILEGE to vote with profound awareness that more than half the world’s population does not have the same right to vote, in a truly free and democratic way, to pick their leaders. It is also a RIGHT bestowed upon citizens of this Nation by our founding fathers. This sacred right and privilege has been protected for the citizens of this Nation by the blood of millions of defenders of our Nation’s sovereignty. Protecting the integrity of the voting process by seeking proof that a person attempting to vote in an election has been granted this privilege just adds value to the privilege. Why then do we have an argument that we need to let anyone showing up to vote, vote? Shouldn’t we ensure that the person attempting to vote has been granted this sacred privilege as well; otherwise it is no longer a sacred privilege?

Excerpts found below are from a recent article in the Washington Post by Robert Barnes titled: High Court Upholds Indiana Law On Voter ID
6-3 Ruling Calls Measure Reasonable to Fight Fraud

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/28/AR2008042800968.html?hpid=moreheadlines

“The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that states may require voters to present photo identification before casting ballots, opening the way for wider adoption of a measure that Republicans say combats fraud and Democrats say discourages voting among the elderly and the poor.

The court ruled 6 to 3 that the requirements enacted by Indiana’s legislature were not enough of a burden to violate the Constitution. Because the law, which requires specific government-issued identification such as driver’s licenses or passports, is generally regarded as the nation’s strictest such measure, the ruling bodes well for other states that require photo ID and for states that are considering doing so…”

What is important about this opinion is the vote. It was 6 to 3. This means that a swing voter and a usually liberal voter both voted to uphold the law. The main consenting opinion was written by Justice Stevens, who is usually considered a liberal justice. According to the article he wrote: “The application of the statute to the vast majority of Indiana voters is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,” he (Barnes) wrote.

“Three liberal justices — David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer — dissented. ‘Indiana’s ‘Voter ID Law’ threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting right of tens of thousands of the state’s citizens and a significant percentage of those individuals are likely to be deterred from voting,’ wrote (Justice) Souter, whose opinion was joined by Ginsburg…”

This reasoning reeks of ideology and not a matter of rights and law. Today, we show valid picture identification to open bank accounts, obtain employment, rent a movie, and often to use a credit card. Obtaining a valid ID in Indiana is absolutely free, and all you need to do is to demonstrate that you have been granted the privilege to vote by our founding fathers. The article further states:“…But Democrats and civil rights groups say that millions of Americans lack the type of identification that Indiana requires, and that such laws discourage or even disenfranchise people who are least likely to have driver’s licenses or passports: the poor, the elderly, the disabled and urban dwellers…” These Democrats and civil rights groups fail to state that the reason these people lack the necessary type of identification required is that they never had it in the first place – I dare to guess that perhaps they are not citizens? The Democrats want to dilute and even negate the privilege of voting for their own benefit and this is certainly not in keeping with the intention of the founding fathers. Those on the no ID side do not hold the vote as sacred – it is merely a tool to social change. The more people voting without the demonstrated right to vote, the better the chance to have a fraudulent majority and to make the social changes they seek.

It used to be that dead and imprisoned people voted regularly. I believe that this still occurs, but the problem has swelled with the addition of 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants, and the huge numbers of people who are in this country with visas of differing types, who are also NOT entitled to vote.

The arguments against this law and the ruling validating it are not about voter disenfranchisement and its effect on the poor and elderly. The argument is that one side does not view the right to vote with the same awe and sacred nature as the other side. If something is sacred and limited to those who qualify, should safeguards be in place to ensure that it remains sacred and limited? Isn’t this self-evident? If civil rights groups and Democrats want to be sure no one is disenfranchised, then they should institute a program to help these folks obtain the correct ID, so they can exercise their 219 year old sacred, limited right.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »


Way back in the old days after the Republican debacle of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, the Country wanted a CHANGE. Coming forward was a candidate from Georgia, a Governor. Jimmy Carter appeared on the scene as a Democratic Party unknown running for President. He talked of changing Washington business as usual, changing foreign policy business as usual, and being an outsider.

The Country narrowly gave him a victory over more experienced people because his message was seen as a breadth of fresh air. In our haste to put Watergate, the beginnings of an inflation problem, and a gas shortage behind us we never stopped to look at the credentials of this candidate with a fresh outsider message. We just knew that Jimmy Carter represented a fresh start and that he was not of the beltway. Sounds like another candidate running today, doesn’t it?

Jimmy Carter was elected with 50.1% of the vote, but a clear majority of Electoral votes. His handling of the economy resulted in a 40% increase in prices over three years, the prime rate moving from 6.75% to 21.5%, and mortgage rates of 17.5%. Oil prices skyrocketed and Carter instituted an energy policy. This ill conceived energy policy was based on conservation and high prices to help reduce U.S. consumption. It was a policy that simply punished this nation for using oil. The Carter administration economy proved to be the catalyst that brought a “misery index” to the voters in the next Presidential election.

Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy, consisting of “we can talk with our enemies” and “work things out” was perceived as weak in many areas of the world. He did accomplish the Camp David Peace Accord. We lost respect among other Middle East nations, especially Iran. This unprepared, inexperienced administration run by a novice in international affairs may have fostered the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Iranian students seized our Embassy and took our State Department staff hostage. Fifty two State Department diplomats assigned to the Embassy were taken captive by Iranian students in support of the Iran Revolution. This was a violation of a long standing principle of international law, which granted diplomatic immunity to our representatives in Iran. These hostages were held for 444 days and were only released after it was clear that Ronald Reagan would be elected President and would take large scale overt military action against Iran.

Mahmūd Ahmadinejād, the current President of Iran, was a ring leader of this stain on our foreign affairs history. Yes that right, Mahmūd Ahmadinejād, was the Mayor of Tehran and was a ring leader of this reckless disregard of international diplomacy. He denies it was him, but many of the hostages and the former Iranian President Abholhassan Bani-Sadr have asserted that Ahmadinejād was a ring leader.

The lesson here is that our rush to make CHANGE for the sake of change caused this Country to suffer the naivety of a “Washington Outsider” President with no foreign policy experience. He did have Gubernatorial Executive experience – one term, and one term as a State Senator. Change we did receive, but it was an unpleasant change.

The populace sometimes in its ill informed zeal to start fresh and fix the ills of Washington fell for the smooth talking great message Washington Outsider called Jimmy Carter. This agent of change left this nation to be a veritable basket case on the domestic and international scenes.

Due to the reappearance of a misery index economy, we are now hurtling down this same path. The current candidate of CHANGE, Barack Obama, wants to sit down, right out of the chute, with Mahmūd Ahmadinejād. Senator Obama wants to raise taxes and spend heavily against the backdrop of a fragile economy. He wants to stop free trade rather than prepare us for free trade. This is a formula for an exponential increase in misery index.

While experience is not a formula for success, it is much better than uninformed good intentions. We have too much to lose to just blindly make change. We need to address change with a blend of judgment and experience – even a poor history of experience is a learning tool. The very limited experience of a local politician with just two years in the U.S. Senate, less experience then Jimmy Carter held, should be weighed very carefully.

Read Full Post »


In November we will have an election to fill 435 seats in the House of Representatives and 33 seats in the Senate. I have been compiling my wish list for the new Congress. Yes it is early, but since the current Congress has decided to accomplish nothing but continued earmark spending and the discussion of a misguided housing legislation, I thought I might as well get a start on what they will not accomplish in the 111th Congress.

Let’s see! This country needs a sound coherent energy policy that considers our exposed national security, with oil being our Achilles Heel and all. It is a shame that the current Congress does not want to attempt this, other than to tell oil companies they charge too much and to bring prices down or they will lose the tax benefits that helps to moderate prices – makes sense to me. Instead they gave us ethanol which is proving to burn as much carbon as oil after the growth cycle, transport cycle, the refining cycle, and the second transport cycle. It does not pack as much punch as oil and the MPG is not as high, but the farmers are happy since they get great subsidies to plant corn for ethanol. This has led to a shortage of corn to feed our cattle and a shortage of an assortment of other farm products raising food prices rapidly around the country – nice work there Congress!

Our trade deficit might be a good thing to address, after all, China represents an unfair, unrelenting trade behemoth with an artificially devalued Yuan. It ships any kind of quality or non-quality to our consumers, especially our kids. It has been trying to steal our industrial and technology secrets to boot. China is an unfair trade threat, but our Congress has not adjusted tariffs to compensate for China’s scurrilous unfair trade advantage. My wish list includes placing our domestic businesses on a competitive trade footing with other nation’s businesses. Perhaps we could try in the next Congress to change the tax structure and other impediments to our businesses so they can compete, grow, and develop new and good paying jobs. It is a shame the 110th Congress has ignored this problem.

It is depressing that they could not spend a substantial amount of time discussing health care and the current tax code in the 110th Congress – they must have had more important things to do! The illegal immigration resolution discussion must have taken up much of their time or did it? Remember, they could not find time to re-visit this tough issue after they slapped together a poor “comprehensive” bill and then when it fell apart, decided they could not spend anymore time on it. It is apparently not important to the American people, whom they represent.

The 110th Congress was elected to change business as usual in Washington, to stop the out of control spending of the Republicans, and to bring ethics back to Washington. Well, the now Democrat controlled 110th Congress has accomplished nothing, spent more via earmarks than the 109th Congress, and avoided every tough but immanently critical issue facing this country – they are good at finger pointing after the fact.

At the beginning of this piece, I asked “What do I want from Congress”? Well, I want a Congress that is more responsive to the decay in the underpinnings of this country’s economy and strength, and less interested in pandering, getting rich, being re-elected to consolidate power. I want patriots in Congress. I want leaders in Congress. I want neither Republicans nor Democrats in Congress. I want concerned citizens in Congress. In the fall, we can and should change 468 House and Senate Fannies in Congress – they might then get the message.

Read Full Post »


In Presidential election of recent vintage, the Democratic and Republican Party’s candidates for nomination have had to move left for the Democrats and move right for the Republicans to obtain the nomination. The party regulars, the primary voters, and especially the caucus attendees of each party generally represent a more pure view of the party’s positions, thus liberal left for the Democrats and conservative right for the Republicans.

It has become customary and accepted for the candidates to move closer to their party’s core when seeking the nomination. Generally the candidate in the general election race then swings back toward the right for Democrats and left for Republicans. In this primary election race, we saw John McCain trying very hard to demonstrate that he is a conservative Republican at his core and Hillary Clinton trying ultra hard to demonstrate that she has liberal Democrat credentials.

The odd thing is that Senator Obama appears to be breaking the mold and is not moving left for his party’s nomination. He has actually moved right to align himself with his party’s liberal left. Yes, he was too far left, thus he had to tack to the right for the nomination. We have seen many indications of his real political leaning in the Reverend Wright controversy, his non-voting and voting record. He is the one candidate that has so many present votes that we have to afford him two voting records.

The self proclaimed non-partisan National Journal Group’s National Journal Magazine reported that in their survey, Barack Obama was the most liberal Senator in 2007.

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/voteratings/

A recent story at Politico.Com points out that in Barack Obama’s first run for elective office; he completed a survey that I have included for you to read. His positions make him the poster boy for the far left. He tried to spin this questionnaire by saying he had not seen it and that it was submitted by his campaign staff without his knowledge – remember this was a race for State Senator where a small cozy campaign staff would be the norm. Senator Obama seems to have this deaf, dumb, and blind defense down pat on any issues demonstrating his far left positions.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html

The survey cited in the Politico article was taken by the Independent Voters of Illinois – Independent Precinct Organization.  The questionnaire follows:

Obama questionnaire at first run for elective office

Obama questionnaire continued.

 

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: