Archive for the ‘Voting’ Category

A stupid op-ed from WaPo:

In 1947, Sen. Harley Kilgore (D-W.Va.) condemned a proposed constitutional amendment that would restrict presidents to two terms. “The executive’s effectiveness will be seriously impaired,” Kilgore argued on the Senate floor, “ as no one will obey and respect him if he knows that the executive cannot run again.”

Which is as stupid today as it was then.  Presidents will be obeyed and respected based on their character and what they do for the nation.  Respect can be lost, and accepting obedience can be replaced with grudging obedience, disobedience, or outright defiance depending on the president.

…the argument of our first president, who is often held up as the father of term limits. In fact, George Washington opposed them. “I can see no propriety in precluding ourselves from the service of any man who, in some great emergency, shall be deemed universally most capable of serving the public,” Washington wrote in a much-quoted letter to the Marquis de Lafayette.

And Washington would’ve burned the city named after him to the ground for the actions of the Obama administration in arming narcoterrorist cartels and hushing it up, in targeting citizens for political reasons with the IRS, and leaving an ambassador to die in Libya while smuggling weapons to Al-Qaeda affiliated groups in Syria.  Washington may still agree with his statement then in theory, but that would require a moral people of politically interested citizens, an uncorrupted voting system, and parties that were not rooted in socialist redistribution and Marxism – an ideology that didn’t exist in the late 1700s.  As the Daily Caller notes in picking apart the WaPo op-ed:

Zimmerman is untroubled by the prospect that long-term control of executive apparatus, along with the natural advantages of incumbency, might smooth the way for continuing rule by a president regardless of genuine popular will. The Obama Internal Revenue Service targeted the president’s political enemies before the 2012 election. The history of presidents for life in other nations shows ever-growing popular votes for the incumbent that in most cases masked widespread popular discontent.

The bureaucracy that existed in Washington’s time was miniscule in comparison to what we have today.  The unelected bureaucrats were few in number, and the legions of regulators simply did not exist.  While Washington’s theory may still hold up, it doesn’t address the problems that the Daily Caller bit notes.  The ever-growing popular votes for the incumbent are also often indicators of widespread voter fraud by dictators who will never relinquish power.  With institutions like ACORN actively engaged in voter fraud, and Democrats demanding that voters never have to show ID – so they can engage in more fraudulent voting, there is a great threat of political leftists simply taking over through manipulation of the electoral systems – even by outright controlling who counts the votes.

Quit Stalin' and get countin'!It’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes.

Zimmerman at WaPo goes on:

Only in 1940, amid what George Washington might have called a “great emergency,” did a president successfully stand for a third term. Citing the outbreak of war overseas and the Depression at home, Democrats renominated Franklin D. Roosevelt. They pegged him for a fourth time in 1944 despite his health problems, which were serious enough to send him to his grave the following year.

To Republicans, these developments echoed the fascist trends enveloping Europe. “You will be serving under an American totalitarian government before the long third term is finished,” warned Wendell Wilkie, Roosevelt’s opponent in 1940.

Economically, people were suffering under it.  And if you were an American of Japanese descent, he was vividly proven right.

H

Zimmerman at WaPo continues with more voices from supporters of camps past:

“I think our people are to be safely trusted with their own destiny,” Sen. Claude Pepper (D-Fla.) argued in 1947. “We do not need to protect the American people with a prohibition against a president whom they do not wish to elect; and if they wanted to elect him, have we the right to deny them the power?”

The people of Minnesota didn’t want Al Franken, but they got him anyway, due in part to illegally voting felons (which the Democrat party favors… because they vote Democrat).  The people of many states don’t want the dead or nonresidents voting… but they do anyway.

Zimmerman finishes:

It’s time to put that power back where it belongs. When Ronald Reagan was serving his second term, some Republicans briefly floated the idea of removing term limits so he could run again. The effort went nowhere, but it was right on principle. Barack Obama should be allowed to stand for re election just as citizens should be allowed to vote for — or against — him. Anything less diminishes our leaders and ourselves.

Translation:

“It’s time to put that power back in the hands of ACORN and the Democrat party.  Republicans thought about the idea, just like ending the filibuster, but we opposed it then as tyranny, but now we’re okay with it because we think we’ll win and dominate you with a reign that will last 1000 years.  The effort went nowhere because no way we’d let Reagan be around for another four years, but it’s a good thing now because Obama has an 8 year incumbency and all of the bureaucracy to target his enemies so he can win and be president for life.  Barack Obama should be handed re-election just like Hugo Chavez and citizens should be allowed to vote for him – or be targeted for opposing dear leader.  Anything less diminishes our party power and you’re a bad person if you disagree with me.”

That’s the real crux of it.

Washington is correct, given a population of moral citizens who are politically-interested yeoman farmers, an uncorrupt voting system, and no savage oppression of the citizenry with a massive bureaucracy.  In his time, it would work.  In his time, the federal government existed on customs, tariffs, and duties, not a progressive income tax administered by a ruthless, unaccountable, politically-driven bureaucracy.

Washington’s ideal worked up until the New Deal’s economic policies dragged a harsh market correction in 1929 into a decade of misery and liberal fascism.  Washington faced with the situation of 200 years of advancement in society would probably look at it and say: “If we restore civic virtue in the American people to what it once was, we should have no reason to preclude ourselves from retaining the service of any man the public requires, but as the current system is largely incompatible with such widespread virtue, I understand the necessity of limiting consolidation of power by one man and one party, lest tyranny take firm hold and our Constitution be trampled further.”

Followed by: “What do you mean I can’t carry a modern rifle on the streets of my own city?”

-

Update: Looks like this idea has been bounced around a bit more.  Jazz Shaw at HotAir covers a few more folks’ discussions of it.

Starting with a former president/lawyer talking about guns, from Katie Pavlich writing at bearingarms.com:

During his speech at the 50th anniversary celebration of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s I Have a Dream speech in Washington D.C. Wednesday, former President Bill Clinton implied it was easier to buy an ‘assault weapon’ in the United States of America than it is to vote in elections.

“A great democracy does not make it harder to vote than it does to buy an assault weapon,” Clinton said.

Ms. Pavlich notes that yes, you do in fact have to show ID to buy a firearm and you don’t need to show ID to vote.  One is sovereign franchise over the execution of the nation’s government, the other is a piece of metal and plastic.  Yet you need to show ID for the metal and plastic, but you can vote multiple times with no ID to put someone in office who will be able to wield the power of the state against the populace.

Not letting citizens of MA, CA, DC, or NY vote at all probably isn’t what he means by that.

Although, on the other hand, a truly great democracy simply issues its citizens actual assault rifles to defend themselves.

swiss girls with guns

-

Lawyers in congress are going after guns by using the power to destroy – the power to tax (H/T Gateway Pundit):

There is a new anti-gun bill sitting on Capitol Hill, and it doesn’t deal with banning particular models of firearms or even universal background checks.

The Gun Violence Prevention and Safe Communities Act of 2013, was proposed by U.S. Reps. Danny K. Davis, D-Ill., and Bill Pascrell, D-N.J. The bill seeks to raise the tax rate on gun sales from 10% to 20%.

This stuff does get pushed in every year and usually dies somewhere along the way, but the end result if it passes is actually class warfare by the Democrats against the poor.  If you’re poor and want to defend yourself because you live in a crappy neighborhood, that cheap Hi-Point 9mm pistol you could’ve bought for $150 just went up to $180.  That’s money out of your pocket, money that you need.

It targets the poor, who are disproportionately minorities or rural whites, and targets them for disarmament and makes them the victims of crime.  Of course the statist Democrats want there to be no self-defense, but those few who still might understand the basics of natural law would see they’re hurting people they’re trying to help… because criminals will always be violent, and will always have weapons.  The law-abiding good people will be hurt in their pocketbooks, and will be driven away from self defense due to increased costs.

-

And finally, Democrat congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, representative from DC (and gun-hating tyrant) calling to leave a message on a lobbyist’s answering machine demanding a bribe, called out by self-described progressive liberals at The Young Turks, of all people:

Corruption at its finest.

There’ve been a cluster of these stories coming pretty fast as the Gang of 8 pushes for amnesty for illegal aliens.

First, from FOX, the Kansas Secretary of State’s home was mobbed by illegal alien supporters.  To the left, it’s completely justified in targeting someone’s home and family:

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach is calling for a criminal investigation after a huge mob of illegal alien supporters surrounded his private home Saturday and held a rally on his front porch.

At least 200 members of Sunflower Community Action were bused into Kobach’s Kansas City-area neighborhood on Saturday – to protest his staunch anti-illegal alien views.

“I was just appalled,” Kobach told Fox News. “They have a right to protest at my office or at public places – that’s fine. But they don’t have a right to enter someone’s private property and engage in this kind of intimidation.”

“I have four little girls and they would have been terrified to see 200 protesters shouting at their daddy on megaphones on the front lawn,” he said.

Kobach noted there’s a solution to the left’s standard tactics of mob invasion.

The secretary of state is a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment – and he said the incident at his home is an example of why Americans should bear arms.

“If we had been in the home and not been armed, I would have felt very afraid – because it took the police 15 minutes to show up,” he said. “It’s important we recognize there’s a reason we have the Second Amendment. There are situations like this where you have a mob and you do need to be able to protect yourself.”

He said had they been home and the mob had gotten out of hand, his family would have been in “grave jeopardy.”

“The Second Amendment is the private property owner’s last resort,” he said.

Short version:

get off my lawn-

The CBO has stated that the new “Gang of 8″ bill will simply create more illegal immigration by encouraging violations of the law.  Naw, ya think?

…the CBO report also found that the bill, which takes steps to prevent people coming to the U.S. illegally while offering the hope of citizenship to some 11 million people already here without authorization, does not come close to ending illegal immigration. Indeed some aspects of the bill would make the problem worse, the report said.

“Unauthorized residents would find it harder both to enter the country and to find employment while unauthorized. However, other aspects of the bill would probably increase the number of unauthorized residents — in particular, people overstaying their visas issued under the new programs for temporary workers,” the CBO report said, adding that the net annual flow of unauthorized residents would decrease by about 25 percent compared to current law.

A bit more on this at NRO’s the Corner.

-

HotAir did illegal immigration as their “quotes of the day” theme yesterday.

-

Finally, J. Christian Adams at PJ Media takes a counterpoint to the Arizona voter ID law ruling by SCOTUS:

Something perverse happened after the Supreme Court’s decision today invalidating citizenship-verification requirements in Arizona for registrants who use the federal voter registration form. The Left knows they lost most of the battle, but are still claiming victory. That’s what they do. Election-integrity proponents and the states are saying they lost, but don’t realize they really won.

So far I’ve been of the opinion that election integrity is being stomped.  But Adams makes a point:

Arizona can simply push the state forms in all state offices and online, and keep those federal forms in the back room gathering dust. When you submit a state form, you have to prove citizenship.  …

After the decision today, states have a green light to do double- and triple-checking even if a registrant uses the federal form. The Left wanted the submission of a federal form to mean automatic no-questions-asked registration. This is a big loss for the Left because now states can put suspect forms in limbo while they run checks against non-citizen databases and jury-response forms. Another significant victory in today’s decision. The Left wanted to strip them of that double-checking power.

He lists five different things the left wanted and notes that some state forms stay active, which means there may be a way to actually begin to enforce citizenship as a condition of voting by allowing for state forms to take precedence.

I’m still skeptical, but he makes a point.

Sovereign franchise means nothing.

(Reuters) – The Supreme Court on Monday struck down an Arizona state law that requires people registering to vote in federal elections to show proof of citizenship.

In a 7-2 vote, the court said the voter registration provision of the 2004 state law, known as Proposition 200, was trumped by a federal law, the 1993 National Voter Registration Act.

The federal law requires prospective voters to provide one of several possible forms of identification, such as a driver’s license or a passport, but no proof of citizenship is needed. Would-be voters simply sign a statement saying they are citizens.

In the majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia said the state law was preempted by language in the federal statute saying that states must “accept and use” a federal registration form.

The state law ordered officials to reject the form if there was no accompanying proof of citizenship.

A driver’s license isn’t proof of citizenship.

atta drivers license

Scalia is ruling along with the fedgov’s authority, but when the fedgov doesn’t enforce the law, it means the states and the nation are being stomped on.

When the fedgov is actively ignoring the law it’s supposed to enforce, SCOTUS is simply enforcing tyranny.  If Scalia wanted a good ruling, he should’ve overturned the law and mandated the fedgov do it’s ****ing job.  But the Democrat leftists in government who are the ruling class really don’t care – they import illegals who will take handouts and vote for redistribution of your wealth and increase their own power – and it all falls into their leftist worldview where your success means you’re an oppressor who needs to be punished.  Oh, and dirka dur!

Reuters doesn’t miss the chance to spit out some propaganda:

Arizona, which shares a border with Mexico, has a reputation for passing tough anti-immigration laws that have brought it into conflict with the Obama administration.

To the left, illegal immigration and legal immigration are meaningless.  Illegal immigration actively aids them, while legal immigration brings in immigrants who do want the American dream and not the American handout.

The Arizona voter registration measure is one of many nationwide championed by Republicans and put in place at the state level. Democrats say the measures are intended to make it more difficult for certain voters who tend to vote Democratic to cast ballots.

Yes, to make it more difficult to ILLEGALLY CAST DEMOCRAT BALLOTS.

The left’s goal is victory by any means necessary, whether using the IRS, using the NSA, using voter fraud, using the ATF, it doesn’t matter.

From FOX:

The Obama/Biden lawn sign remains proudly planted in front of Melowese Richardson’s Cincinnati home, three months after the presidential election.

It seems that President Obama has an especially ardent supporter in the veteran Ohio poll worker.

Richardson told a local television station this month that she voted twice for Obama last November. She cast an absentee ballot and then voted at the polls as well.

“Yes, I voted twice,” Richardson told WCPO-TV. “I, after registering thousands of people, certainly wanted my vote to count, so I voted. I voted at the polls.”

But there’s no voter fraud.

Authorities also are investigating if she voted in the names of four other people, too, for a total of six votes in the 2012 presidential election.

“I’ll fight it for Mr. Obama and for Mr. Obama’s right to sit as president of the United States,” Richardson vowed when asked about the voter fraud investigation that is now under way.

Richardson is one of 19 people suspected of illegal voting by the Hamilton County Board of Elections in the last election.

Nope, no voter fraud there.

Also note that she says she’ll fight for “Mr. Obama’s right to sit as president of the United States”.  It’s his “right” to rule you, no matter how many laws are broken to put him there – and she’ll make sure that he gets his “right” to be your president – no matter how many times she has to vote to make it happen.  It’s his right to be your leader.

Barack Obama

Obama Supporters Exposed by Howard Stern

Posted: September 23, 2012 by ShortTimer in 2012 Campaign, Leftists, Voting

In general, I find Howard Stern’s humor and show don’t coincide with my tastes, but occasionally he does some interesting bits.  This one in particular is worth listening to and being enlightened as to how the Obama voter thinks:

Voter ID Laws In Court

Posted: September 14, 2012 by ShortTimer in Leftists, Politics, Progressives and Left, Voting

A couple weeks ago, Texas’ voter ID law was struck down, because, y’know, it’s a burden on the poor to have to get ID to exercise their rights.

(CBS/AP) WASHINGTON – A federal court has ruled against a Texas law that would require voters to present photo IDs to election officials before being allowed to cast ballots in November.

A three-judge panel in Washington ruled Thursday that the law imposes “strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor” and noted that racial minorities in Texas are more likely to live in poverty.

Makes sense… since you can go and exercise so many other rights without ID.  Like your right to assemble.  Or your right to bear arms.  Oh, that’s right… you can’t do those things.  Heck, you couldn’t even keep soldiers from quartering on your property if you couldn’t prove it was your property.

Now, Pennsylvania’s voter ID law is being challenged by the ACLU and other leftist groups that want illegal voting.  There’s no real way around that.  You can’t support democracy by letting non-citizens vote, by letting one man equal twenty votes, etc.  They’re for illegal voting and voter fraud.  They’re hoping that they can make things so difficult that states will be forced to allow anyone to vote.

After all, that’s the Chicago way.

 

Live here on C-SPAN.

Started with some notes of Fast & Furious, going on with national security leaks and voter fraud in FL.

Because there was a recall election where free people chose their representatives.  Wait, that’s democracy, right?

Not according to the histrionics of this leftist cheesehead:

It’s the end of the USA!  Democracy is dead!

This Wisconsin voter shared the same opinion:

Reuters laments that there will be further “attacks on unions“.  And as usual, pics or it didn’t happen:

Wisconsin’s 119% Voter Turnout

Posted: June 5, 2012 by ShortTimer in Voting, Wisconsin

Speaking of voter fraud:

A Madison City Clerk has told a Wisconsin radio host that turnout for the area is expected at over 100%, up to 119%. What makes it all the more interesting is that this story comes from a far-left site.

Progressives shrug the 119% figure off as evidence that people are registering at the polls to vote. Considering that Wisconsin has oddly relaxed voter ID laws and a judge granted an injunction against measures that would have protected people’s votes, is it any surprise?

The whole Wisconsin election is going to set the stage for the national one.  There will be screaming, yelling, gnashing of teeth, and Democrats will simply try to count votes until they find enough for their guy to win as was done with the joke Al Franken in Minnesota.

And as usual, it’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes.

Update: Well, Walker won by a large margin.  Of course, the left’s complete reaction remains to be seen.  There could still be a few hundred thousand votes outstanding, and plenty of lawyers sent to try and screw up the actual democratic process.  Apparently some of that 119% came from voters who registered and voted the same day, thus causing odd numbers.  Who they voted for, and what Walker’s actual margin would’ve been, we don’t know.  Apparently it was sufficient to take care of any out-of-state interference.