There has been an ongoing issue about vote fraud. It comes in many ways. It can be dead people voting. It can be people saying they are someone that they aren't but not proving it. It can be an illegal alien going to vote because they have a home address. It can be someone claiming that they are a celebrity when they aren't. Even cartoon characters have been registered to vote in different places.
More and more states are creating voter id laws. In short, they require you to prove that you are who you say you by showing a valid id such as a drivers license with your picture on it.
The Democrats are claiming that this is Republicans trying to suppress the vote. This may surprise you, but they are actually correct in this assertion. Allow me to explain. If you are a citizen of this country, whether born here or moved here and became a legal citizen, age 18 or older, you are eligible to vote in our elections. There are a few ways you can lose that eligibility to vote, but otherwise, you're not stopped from voting.
The votes that the ID laws suppress are the illegal votes. An illegal alien is not eligible to vote. A 10 year old is not eligible to vote. So yes, the ID laws being passed are to suppress votes. Illegal votes!
One of the Democrats that is against the voter ID laws, is none other than the Attorney General of the United States. His name is Eric Holder. He is the one that is charged with upholding the laws of this country.
Recently, a man showed up in Washington DC to vote. He had no ID, but it didn't matter because it wasn't a requirement in Washington DC to prove you are who you say you are. This man claimed to be Eric Holder. He was about to be processed through to vote when he said he should get his identification to prove who he is, but it was out in the car. The worker said it wasn't necessary, that he gave his name and address and it matched their records, so he could vote and not prove with an ID who he was. The man insisted and finally the worker agreed. The man said he'd be back with his ID faster than the worker could say "furious" referencing the fast and furious scandal regarding gun running by the government to the Mexican cartels.
Here's the problem. Eric Holder, the attorney general, who's name and address that the man gave as his name, is black. The impersonator is white.
The man that did this, was part of the group from James O'Keefe, who is the same man that did the videos exposing the ACORN group awhile back.
This should cause the liberals a real problem. By their own words, the man should have been permitted to vote despite him not being who he said he was. They'll naturally claim it was a setup because it was done by the O'Keefe group and brought to light on Britebarts site. But, regardless of who did it, and their reasons for doing it, this person should have been permitted to vote and have it count. Well, he would have been permitted to vote. He tried to help the election worker catch him at voter fraud, but the worker wouldn't bite at the help.
This same group (the O'Keefe group) are responsible for the new voter ID law in New Hampshire when they exposed that dead people had voted in a recent election. They also went to Minnesota and were going to vote at Tom Brady, the New England Patriots quarterback. Minnesota is now putting the voter ID law on the ballot to change their Constitution.
I wonder if Eric Holder minds that someone tried to use his name to vote. Had anyone checked the ballots following the election would they have found that Eric Holder had voted twice? Would they even care?
I also wonder if Eric Holder will still say voter ID laws aren't necessary after finding out that someone was impersonating him to cast their ballot...or his ballot.
You're welcome to comment.
Brett
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Judicial Activism or Check and Balance?
President Obama, on the campaign trail, said that if the court strikes down the health care law, it would be what Republicans have railed against the past several years. Judicial Activism. The decision is due to be announced in June after the recent hearings.
Obama said "Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," I think there are a couple of things to look at in that quote. First, is the "Strong Majority of a democratically elected Congress".
We should remember that Congress. Let's start with the House. Nancy Pelosi was Speaker. It was March of 2010. Remember them walking into the Capitol with the throng of protestors that many of the Democrats passed through as though to throw their upcoming vote in the protestors faces? Remember the so-called spitting incident?
Remember Bart Stupak, who was the leader of a group of congressmen that were withholding their vote because they didn't want government funded abortions paid for by the bill? They got their promise of an executive order (not binding at all) before they would agree to vote for it. This put them over the top in getting it passed. Remember also that in the House there was only one Republican that voted for the bill. Representative Cao from Louisiana.
But a bill doesn't become law just from a House vote. The Senate must also vote on the bill. If they don't pass it exactly as the House passed it, it must go back to the House for another vote. To pass the House version, the Senate only needs a simple majority, or 51 votes. But if they make changes to it, they must have 60 votes to pass it before it goes back to the House.
Prior to the bill coming up, Senator Ted Kennedy died. A special election was held. A man by the name of Scott Brown ran on the Republican side and his campaign slogan was that he would be the 41st vote to stop the health care bill. Brown was elected to fill that seat in Massachussets. The health care law appeared dead.
But the Democrats got together. They decided they wanted the law passed more than to listen to the people that were in the majority against it and to negate Scott Brown. There was just one way to do that. Pass the House bill as is. Even if they disagreed with parts of it, they could "fix it later". That is exactly what they chose to do. They got their health care bill, despite many thinking it flawed. The law passed with trickery on the Democrats part because they didn't have a strong enough majority in congress.
Another thing to remember was the deals that needed to be made to get this bill passed. Money given to certain states to obtain their vote. The "Louisiana Purchase" for Mary Landrieux's vote."Cornhusker Kickback" for Ben Nelson's vote. Money given to Connecticut for Senator Dodd's vote.
Obama is playing word games and fast and loose with the facts. He's right in a way. The Congress did have a strong majority of Democrats. The House only needs a simple majority to pass a bill and they had a majority in the House. The Senate needed 60 Democrats and at times they had their 60 vote majority when Senator Arlen Specter switched parties. However, he did not have a strong majority of the Congress. He eked out a victory on health care.
If the Supreme Court strikes down the law, he's calling it "unprecedented" and "judicial activism". He may be right on this. However, the health care law is unprecedented. It just may be that an unprecedented action is needed to offset another unprecedented action. The takeover of the health care system is unprecedented. The judicial branch is an equal branch of government created to be a check and balance on the executive and legislative branches. When one branch does something unprecedented, would you not expect another branch to react in the same manner at times?
I'm not much on Science. I tell my kids that I can't be much help to them with Science because about the only thing I get right with Science is the spelling of it. There is one thing that I've learned though and it's physics (science) and pretty basic. For every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. Congress set a precedent. Why shouldn't the Judicial Branch set a precedent if needed?
Obama has already taken on the Supreme Court once in a State of the Union speech which led to Justice Samuel Alito mouthing out "that's not true" on camera to Obama's words. I believe this too, was unprecedented. Not just for a justice to be caught mouthing disagreement but also for a President to attempt to dress down a Supreme Court in the State of the Union speech.
This case has worked its' way through the system. It's been upheld and shot down and even called Unconstitutional by one judge. It has earned it's place at the Supreme Court where it will be judged. To try to change the facts about how the law came to be and to make excuses for how it failing, if it fails, before it fails, seems more like he's trying to influence the outcome.
You're welcome to comment.
Brett
Obama said "Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," I think there are a couple of things to look at in that quote. First, is the "Strong Majority of a democratically elected Congress".
We should remember that Congress. Let's start with the House. Nancy Pelosi was Speaker. It was March of 2010. Remember them walking into the Capitol with the throng of protestors that many of the Democrats passed through as though to throw their upcoming vote in the protestors faces? Remember the so-called spitting incident?
Remember Bart Stupak, who was the leader of a group of congressmen that were withholding their vote because they didn't want government funded abortions paid for by the bill? They got their promise of an executive order (not binding at all) before they would agree to vote for it. This put them over the top in getting it passed. Remember also that in the House there was only one Republican that voted for the bill. Representative Cao from Louisiana.
But a bill doesn't become law just from a House vote. The Senate must also vote on the bill. If they don't pass it exactly as the House passed it, it must go back to the House for another vote. To pass the House version, the Senate only needs a simple majority, or 51 votes. But if they make changes to it, they must have 60 votes to pass it before it goes back to the House.
Prior to the bill coming up, Senator Ted Kennedy died. A special election was held. A man by the name of Scott Brown ran on the Republican side and his campaign slogan was that he would be the 41st vote to stop the health care bill. Brown was elected to fill that seat in Massachussets. The health care law appeared dead.
But the Democrats got together. They decided they wanted the law passed more than to listen to the people that were in the majority against it and to negate Scott Brown. There was just one way to do that. Pass the House bill as is. Even if they disagreed with parts of it, they could "fix it later". That is exactly what they chose to do. They got their health care bill, despite many thinking it flawed. The law passed with trickery on the Democrats part because they didn't have a strong enough majority in congress.
Another thing to remember was the deals that needed to be made to get this bill passed. Money given to certain states to obtain their vote. The "Louisiana Purchase" for Mary Landrieux's vote."Cornhusker Kickback" for Ben Nelson's vote. Money given to Connecticut for Senator Dodd's vote.
Obama is playing word games and fast and loose with the facts. He's right in a way. The Congress did have a strong majority of Democrats. The House only needs a simple majority to pass a bill and they had a majority in the House. The Senate needed 60 Democrats and at times they had their 60 vote majority when Senator Arlen Specter switched parties. However, he did not have a strong majority of the Congress. He eked out a victory on health care.
If the Supreme Court strikes down the law, he's calling it "unprecedented" and "judicial activism". He may be right on this. However, the health care law is unprecedented. It just may be that an unprecedented action is needed to offset another unprecedented action. The takeover of the health care system is unprecedented. The judicial branch is an equal branch of government created to be a check and balance on the executive and legislative branches. When one branch does something unprecedented, would you not expect another branch to react in the same manner at times?
I'm not much on Science. I tell my kids that I can't be much help to them with Science because about the only thing I get right with Science is the spelling of it. There is one thing that I've learned though and it's physics (science) and pretty basic. For every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. Congress set a precedent. Why shouldn't the Judicial Branch set a precedent if needed?
Obama has already taken on the Supreme Court once in a State of the Union speech which led to Justice Samuel Alito mouthing out "that's not true" on camera to Obama's words. I believe this too, was unprecedented. Not just for a justice to be caught mouthing disagreement but also for a President to attempt to dress down a Supreme Court in the State of the Union speech.
This case has worked its' way through the system. It's been upheld and shot down and even called Unconstitutional by one judge. It has earned it's place at the Supreme Court where it will be judged. To try to change the facts about how the law came to be and to make excuses for how it failing, if it fails, before it fails, seems more like he's trying to influence the outcome.
You're welcome to comment.
Brett
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)