Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Bill Maher Shows 'Welfare Queen' Video HBO Refused To
Last week, HBO ran a controversial video showing white Mississippians who essentially fit the Leftist stereotype of 'toothless,racist rednecks' saying inflammatory things about President Obama. The video was made by Alexandra Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi's daughter.
She then made another video showing multiple welfare recipients in New York City proclaiming they were at the welfare office to get their "Obama bucks" and that they supported Obama because he "gives me stuff."
According to Ms. Pelosi, HBO balked at showing the second video. Nevertheless, to her credit and Bill Maher's, they pushed back and showed the video anyway, and Ms. Pelosi had a number of intelligent things to say about the entitlement culture that goes with it.
As expected, the majority of the recipients were black, and made the predictable remarks about it being reparations for slavery, and also as expected, Maher recognized that as 'more authentic' than the white Mississippian's 'chip on their shoulders' he put it. He obviously needs a few history lessons, but he's certainly entitled.
But again, they did show both videos. And the reaction of Maher's audience, largely Lefties was interesting, catcalls and laughter during the clips of the white Mississippians and dead silence after the welfare recipients video underlines what both Pelosi and Maher said.
We've gotten to the point where the extremes, manipulated by cynical politicians, are driving the narrative to the detriment of the majority.
It's a pity that neither Pelosi nor Maher were willing to look at a lot of the divisive and even racist rhetoric the Obama Administration and its surrogates are using as one of the prime culprits, but let's take the small victories where we can.
(h/t,Breitbart.com)
Bill Maher Shows 'Welfare Queen' Video HBO Refused To
Last week, HBO ran a controversial video showing white Mississippians who essentially fit the Leftist stereotype of 'toothless,racist rednecks' saying inflammatory things about President Obama. The video was made by Alexandra Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi's daughter.
She then made another video showing multiple welfare recipients in New York City proclaiming they were at the welfare office to get their "Obama bucks" and that they supported Obama because he "gives me stuff."
According to Ms. Pelosi, HBO balked at showing the second video. Nevertheless, to her credit and Bill Maher's, they pushed back and showed the video anyway, and Ms. Pelosi had a number of intelligent things to say about the entitlement culture that goes with it.
As expected, the majority of the recipients were black, and made the predictable remarks about it being reparations for slavery, and also as expected, Maher recognized that as 'more authentic' than the white Mississippian's 'chip on their shoulders' he put it. He obviously needs a few history lessons, but he's certainly entitled.
But again, they did show both videos. And the reaction of Maher's audience, largely Lefties was interesting, catcalls and laughter during the clips of the white Mississippians and dead silence after the welfare recipients video underlines what both Pelosi and Maher said.
We've gotten to the point where the extremes, manipulated by cynical politicians, are driving the narrative to the detriment of the majority.
It's a pity that neither Pelosi nor Maher were willing to look at a lot of the divisive and even racist rhetoric the Obama Administration and its surrogates are using as one of the prime culprits, but let's take the small victories where we can.
(h/t,Breitbart.com)
Sunday, January 15, 2012
El Baradei Pulls Out Of Egyptian Presidential Race
Ex IAEA head Mohammed El Baradei announced today that he was pulling out of Egypt's presidential race and would no longer be a candidate. When he discusses why, as usual he's lying through his teeth.
El Baradei claims that he pulled out because of the military junta is still ruling Egypt. “My conscience does not permit me to run for the presidency or any other official position unless it is within a real democratic system.”
The real reason he pulled out is that he doesn't stand a chance of getting elected, and in the sort of country Egypt is going to become being a failed presidential candidate could be quite hazardous to one's health.
The Egyptian parliamentary elections are over, and the Islamist Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) won 46% of the seats, with the even more hard core Salafist al-Nour Party winning about 23% of the seats, giving the Islamist parties a 70% majority.
El Baradei was definitely anti-Israel and anti-Western as well as an appeaser of Iran who consistently covered up for Iran's illegal nuclear program, but he's not an Islamist and was thus seen as not hardline enough compared to Amr Moussa, an ex-head of the Arab League or other Islamists candidates in the field. El Baradei was associated more with the Facebook liberals in places like Cairo, who have proven to be political wash outs with little actual support.
The current military junta has been in place for almost a year,led by ex-President Mubarak's former defense minister General Mohamed Tantawi. While elections have been held, there's actually been little progress in heading towards a civilian government, although a civilian prime minister, Kamal al-Ganzouri was appointed by the junta two months ago and elections were held as promised.
That really points either of two scenarios; either the military cuts a deal with the Islamists and cedes power in exchange for a few perks or the military holds on to power with Tantawi or one of his junta mates in charge.
In either case, there's no place for El Baradei. Some western policymakers actually considered El Baradei the best possible outcome, which shows both how clueless they are and where Egypt is likely headed.
El Baradei claims that he pulled out because of the military junta is still ruling Egypt. “My conscience does not permit me to run for the presidency or any other official position unless it is within a real democratic system.”
The real reason he pulled out is that he doesn't stand a chance of getting elected, and in the sort of country Egypt is going to become being a failed presidential candidate could be quite hazardous to one's health.
The Egyptian parliamentary elections are over, and the Islamist Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) won 46% of the seats, with the even more hard core Salafist al-Nour Party winning about 23% of the seats, giving the Islamist parties a 70% majority.
El Baradei was definitely anti-Israel and anti-Western as well as an appeaser of Iran who consistently covered up for Iran's illegal nuclear program, but he's not an Islamist and was thus seen as not hardline enough compared to Amr Moussa, an ex-head of the Arab League or other Islamists candidates in the field. El Baradei was associated more with the Facebook liberals in places like Cairo, who have proven to be political wash outs with little actual support.
The current military junta has been in place for almost a year,led by ex-President Mubarak's former defense minister General Mohamed Tantawi. While elections have been held, there's actually been little progress in heading towards a civilian government, although a civilian prime minister, Kamal al-Ganzouri was appointed by the junta two months ago and elections were held as promised.
That really points either of two scenarios; either the military cuts a deal with the Islamists and cedes power in exchange for a few perks or the military holds on to power with Tantawi or one of his junta mates in charge.
In either case, there's no place for El Baradei. Some western policymakers actually considered El Baradei the best possible outcome, which shows both how clueless they are and where Egypt is likely headed.
El Baradei Pulls Out Of Egyptian Presidential Race
Ex IAEA head Mohammed El Baradei announced today that he was pulling out of Egypt's presidential race and would no longer be a candidate. When he discusses why, as usual he's lying through his teeth.
El Baradei claims that he pulled out because of the military junta is still ruling Egypt. “My conscience does not permit me to run for the presidency or any other official position unless it is within a real democratic system.”
The real reason he pulled out is that he doesn't stand a chance of getting elected, and in the sort of country Egypt is going to become being a failed presidential candidate could be quite hazardous to one's health.
The Egyptian parliamentary elections are over, and the Islamist Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) won 46% of the seats, with the even more hard core Salafist al-Nour Party winning about 23% of the seats, giving the Islamist parties a 70% majority.
El Baradei was definitely anti-Israel and anti-Western as well as an appeaser of Iran who consistently covered up for Iran's illegal nuclear program, but he's not an Islamist and was thus seen as not hardline enough compared to Amr Moussa, an ex-head of the Arab League or other Islamists candidates in the field. El Baradei was associated more with the Facebook liberals in places like Cairo, who have proven to be political wash outs with little actual support.
The current military junta has been in place for almost a year,led by ex-President Mubarak's former defense minister General Mohamed Tantawi. While elections have been held, there's actually been little progress in heading towards a civilian government, although a civilian prime minister, Kamal al-Ganzouri was appointed by the junta two months ago and elections were held as promised.
That really points either of two scenarios; either the military cuts a deal with the Islamists and cedes power in exchange for a few perks or the military holds on to power with Tantawi or one of his junta mates in charge.
In either case, there's no place for El Baradei. Some western policymakers actually considered El Baradei the best possible outcome, which shows both how clueless they are and where Egypt is likely headed.
El Baradei claims that he pulled out because of the military junta is still ruling Egypt. “My conscience does not permit me to run for the presidency or any other official position unless it is within a real democratic system.”
The real reason he pulled out is that he doesn't stand a chance of getting elected, and in the sort of country Egypt is going to become being a failed presidential candidate could be quite hazardous to one's health.
The Egyptian parliamentary elections are over, and the Islamist Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) won 46% of the seats, with the even more hard core Salafist al-Nour Party winning about 23% of the seats, giving the Islamist parties a 70% majority.
El Baradei was definitely anti-Israel and anti-Western as well as an appeaser of Iran who consistently covered up for Iran's illegal nuclear program, but he's not an Islamist and was thus seen as not hardline enough compared to Amr Moussa, an ex-head of the Arab League or other Islamists candidates in the field. El Baradei was associated more with the Facebook liberals in places like Cairo, who have proven to be political wash outs with little actual support.
The current military junta has been in place for almost a year,led by ex-President Mubarak's former defense minister General Mohamed Tantawi. While elections have been held, there's actually been little progress in heading towards a civilian government, although a civilian prime minister, Kamal al-Ganzouri was appointed by the junta two months ago and elections were held as promised.
That really points either of two scenarios; either the military cuts a deal with the Islamists and cedes power in exchange for a few perks or the military holds on to power with Tantawi or one of his junta mates in charge.
In either case, there's no place for El Baradei. Some western policymakers actually considered El Baradei the best possible outcome, which shows both how clueless they are and where Egypt is likely headed.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Egypt Erupts In Massive Anti-Government Protests
For the past three days (remember these things always start after Friday prayers when the mullahs and imams whip up the faithful)protesters and Egyptian security forces have been fighting what amounts to a street war in Cairo and elsewhere that has killed at least 10 people.
The police and the army responded to barrages of rocks and molotov cocktails with extreme force, shooting teargas, real bullets and rubber bullets, beating protesters severely with metal batons and dragging them away to waiting police vans.
This comes as Egypt had its second round of post-Mubarak elections. Like the first round, held in the relatively sophisticated cities of Cairo and Alexandria, the vote in the second round appears to have been decisively won by the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party and the even more radical Salafi al-Nour Party.
The Brotherhood claims they got around 40% of the votes, while the Salifists are claiming 35%, an even larger slice than they got before. This round of elections took place in nine provinces, in Islamiyya, Suez and Giza, mainly in the outskirts of the big cities.
The protests are being directed against the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces and its head Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi, the de facto transitional rulers of the country. And as I pointed out previously, the ongoing protests are the result of some pretty clever tactics by the Muslim Brotherhood.
The army was formerly seen as heroes by the Egyptian masses because they had pointedly refused to fire on protesters in places like Tahrir Square during the riots against ex-President Mubarak. They're not anymore, because the Brotherhood and other Islamist groups have been a major force in gradually fomenting discontent against the army's rule once it became obvious that the army was not quite ready to completely cave in to Islamist rule.
Now, the army is seen as oppressors and the chief obstacle to 'democracy' and it's the Brotherhood and the Salafists who are seen as the heroes, and are gathering in the votes.
There's no question in my mind but that Egypt is going the way of Iran. In fact, back months ago when the usual suspects were babbling away about the wonders of the Arab Spring, I predicted it.
The Egyptian military will be faced with the choice of either standing aside and going along with the Islamists in order to try and preserve their perks or making war on their own people.
This is exactly the same choice the Iranian military was forced to make with Khomeini, an dthey made the devil's bargain to stay out of the way and let him and his followers take over.
In later years, historians will be looking at President Obama's encouragement of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamists in the same way way they now see Jimmy Carter's encouragement of the same thing in Iran.
As horrible as the above picture looks, just wait until the Brotherhood and the Salafists are running Egypt.
Egypt Erupts In Massive Anti-Government Protests
For the past three days (remember these things always start after Friday prayers when the mullahs and imams whip up the faithful)protesters and Egyptian security forces have been fighting what amounts to a street war in Cairo and elsewhere that has killed at least 10 people.
The police and the army responded to barrages of rocks and molotov cocktails with extreme force, shooting teargas, real bullets and rubber bullets, beating protesters severely with metal batons and dragging them away to waiting police vans.
This comes as Egypt had its second round of post-Mubarak elections. Like the first round, held in the relatively sophisticated cities of Cairo and Alexandria, the vote in the second round appears to have been decisively won by the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party and the even more radical Salafi al-Nour Party.
The Brotherhood claims they got around 40% of the votes, while the Salifists are claiming 35%, an even larger slice than they got before. This round of elections took place in nine provinces, in Islamiyya, Suez and Giza, mainly in the outskirts of the big cities.
The protests are being directed against the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces and its head Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi, the de facto transitional rulers of the country. And as I pointed out previously, the ongoing protests are the result of some pretty clever tactics by the Muslim Brotherhood.
The army was formerly seen as heroes by the Egyptian masses because they had pointedly refused to fire on protesters in places like Tahrir Square during the riots against ex-President Mubarak. They're not anymore, because the Brotherhood and other Islamist groups have been a major force in gradually fomenting discontent against the army's rule once it became obvious that the army was not quite ready to completely cave in to Islamist rule.
Now, the army is seen as oppressors and the chief obstacle to 'democracy' and it's the Brotherhood and the Salafists who are seen as the heroes, and are gathering in the votes.
There's no question in my mind but that Egypt is going the way of Iran. In fact, back months ago when the usual suspects were babbling away about the wonders of the Arab Spring, I predicted it.
The Egyptian military will be faced with the choice of either standing aside and going along with the Islamists in order to try and preserve their perks or making war on their own people.
This is exactly the same choice the Iranian military was forced to make with Khomeini, an dthey made the devil's bargain to stay out of the way and let him and his followers take over.
In later years, historians will be looking at President Obama's encouragement of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamists in the same way way they now see Jimmy Carter's encouragement of the same thing in Iran.
As horrible as the above picture looks, just wait until the Brotherhood and the Salafists are running Egypt.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Voter Fraud 'Minimal'...Oh, Really?
In the wake of Attorney General Eric Holder's declaration of war speech against voter ID laws, a number of the usual suspects stepped in to try to backup his claim that voter fraud was negligible, including, of course, Pravda-on-the-Hudson. They even have a demonstrably cooked 'study' or two to cite.
After my article yesterday on Eric Holder's racist and hypocritical rant, I decided to look through the spam filter and found a number of e-mails from the usual trolls citing the same nonsense. Since none of them met guidelines, being either obscene or containing ad hominem attacks on me or my readers (ones from these particular URLs never meet guidelines, trust me) and since none of them seriously tried to debate the points I raised, I didn't even bother publishing them since they added nothing to the mix.
However, since the 'negligible' argument is being megaphoned by their bylined pals on the Left, I think it's worth addressing.
First of all, 'negligible' is a subjective judgment, based on who's counting. For instance, in 2009 there were a total of 13,257 new cases of AIDS originating from heterosexual contact reported in the US. As a percentage of the US population, that works out to about .000043%, something most mathematicians would call negligible. However, the government spends millions of dollars each year promoting the safe sex message and urging condom use, and if you notice, the ads almost always feature heterosexual couples or females, who have an even lower incidence of AIDS from heterosexual contact then do males. Of course, if you or one of your loved ones is part of the statistic, it's tremendously important to you and if you were to ask someone from the Department of Health and Human Services, they'd undoubtedly tell you that even one case is too many and justifies the most stringent methods at prevention.
Since voter fraud is an infection of our democracy, shouldn't we be as concerned about preventing it?
Actually, the incidents of voter fraud, particularly when it comes to fraudulent registration are rampant and easy to find with a simple internet search. And the interesting thing you find as you get into it is that the reported instances are a lot lower than they might be simply because elected officials and their appointees charged with enforcing the laws on this ( almost always Democrats) frequently fail to investigate and prosecute.
An example I'm personally familiar with involves Bob Dornan, a long time conservative California Republican congressman whose district was redrawn by the Democrat majority in Sacramento. In 1996, Dornan was defeated for re-election by Democrat Loretta Sanchez by a mere 984 votes.
Congressman Dornan charged that there had been massive election fraud in his district involving non-citizens. Dornan did his own investigation and said that that there were at least 1,789 illegal voters, and perhaps more. According to John Funds' book Stealing Elections, the INS did an investigation on its own in 1996 into alleged Motor Voter fraud in California's Forty-sixth Congressional District and found that based on registrations that didn't match up: "4,023 illegal voters possibly cast ballots in the disputed election between Republican Robert Dornan and Democrat Loretta Sanchez." (p. 24).
The House Contested Elections Committee in the Spring of 1997 did a cursory investigation of its own and came up with proof that 547 non-citizens voted in Orange County and that 303 more had been registered to vote in the 46th District by Hermandad Nacional Mexicana, a non profit funded with government grants that actively registered non-citizens to vote and instructed them
on how to mark their absentee ballots.
So at the least, you could say that Dornan had a case and that this called for a thorough investigation by the Department of Justice.
The end result? Democrat Attorney General Janet Reno formally declined to investigate, based on her subjective judgment that 'not enough fraud occurred' to change the results and of course, possibly unseat a Democrat member of Congress.
Want more? One of the most recent well-publicized voter fraud cases occurred in the Washington State governor’s race in November 2004 in which Democrat Christine Gregoire allegedly defeated Republican Dino Rossi by just 129 votes after weeks of vote counting.
Later, the Washington State Superior Court found that 1,400 felons voted illegally, along with illegal votes cast by 53 dead people, two non-citizens and 27 double votes. Since Washington State does not have party voter registration, there was no way of proving exactly how they voted, so the judge ruled there was not enough proof to void the election. However, it's worth mentioning that almost all of the violations occurred in the Democrat stronghold of King County. You might remember that one,because it involved a number of voters claiming the address of the State Democrat party headquarters in Seattle their 'residence'. A similar tactic seems to have been used in this recent case in Wisconsin.
There are numerous other incidents I could cite. For instance, you could spend hours reading about President Obama's old friends at ACORN.
The core of the problem stems from a really bad piece of legislation, passed,of course by a Democrat-dominated Congress. President Clinton's National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) known as the Motor-Voter law makes voter registration virtually automatic when you apply for a driver's license and called for distributing registration applications in state welfare offices. Under this law, the information supplied by the applicant for a license doubles as information for voter registration unless the applicant indicates that he/she doesn't want to be registered. It also has restrictions that prevent states from culling the rolls in a timely manner to eliminate dead people and people whom may no longer be residents in the area or whom have lost their voting rights due to felony convictions.
Since several states now issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens, the voting rolls have become clogged with a number of people who are not entitled to vote. There was a move in Congress to change the law to not include voter registration for non-citizens in 1998. It was narrowly defeated, with nearly every Democrat in Congress voting against.
It's also worth mentioning that for illegal aliens, a voter registration card is one of the proofs of citizenship legally allowed to be used to help establish identity for the purposes of 'legal' employment. That and a social security card are all you need.
And then, there's my own experience. When I drove my elderly mother to the polls in California to vote I stood in line next to her. After my mom finished signing in, the poll worker asked me my name, to which I responded jokingly 'Chauffeur'. My mom told the pol worker "That's my son", after which the poll worker responded "I'll mark him down as living at the same address' and handed me a ballot. I was not even asked for an ID. And yes, I gave it back to the poll worker.
The other side to voter fraud is vote suppression. Again, the chief culprits seem to be Democrats and the chief victims military voters stationed overseas.
It's pretty well known that Al Gore and his team used technicalities and friendly Democrat appointed officials to disqualify the ballots of almost 2,000 members of our military serving overseas in the 2000 Florida presidential election.
What's less well known is that this process wasn't limited to Florida, and was so egregious by the 2008 election that Congress passed the Federal Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (the MOVE Act), which among other things mandated that ballots be in the hands of our military no less than 45 days prior to elections.
Eric Holder and the Obama Department of Justice dealt with that prior to the 2010 midterms by by engaging in a systematic campaign to encourage states to seek waivers not to comply with the laws and suppress the military vote, a constituency that was perceived by them as largely Republican.As you might expect,Congress found out in a subsequent investigation when it was too late to do anything about it that the worst offenders were states and counties run by Democrats. In fact, the Justice Department employee who was the chief contact person in encouraging jurisdictions not to comply with the law was actually promoted.
Voter fraud 'negligible'? Again, I guess it depends on who's counting. And of course, who benefits.
Voter Fraud 'Minimal'...Oh, Really?
In the wake of Attorney General Eric Holder's declaration of war speech against voter ID laws, a number of the usual suspects stepped in to try to backup his claim that voter fraud was negligible, including, of course, Pravda-on-the-Hudson. They even have a demonstrably cooked 'study' or two to cite.
After my article yesterday on Eric Holder's racist and hypocritical rant, I decided to look through the spam filter and found a number of e-mails from the usual trolls citing the same nonsense. Since none of them met guidelines, being either obscene or containing ad hominem attacks on me or my readers (ones from these particular URLs never meet guidelines, trust me) and since none of them seriously tried to debate the points I raised, I didn't even bother publishing them since they added nothing to the mix.
However, since the 'negligible' argument is being megaphoned by their bylined pals on the Left, I think it's worth addressing.
First of all, 'negligible' is a subjective judgment, based on who's counting. For instance, in 2009 there were a total of 13,257 new cases of AIDS originating from heterosexual contact reported in the US. As a percentage of the US population, that works out to about .000043%, something most mathematicians would call negligible. However, the government spends millions of dollars each year promoting the safe sex message and urging condom use, and if you notice, the ads almost always feature heterosexual couples or females, who have an even lower incidence of AIDS from heterosexual contact then do males. Of course, if you or one of your loved ones is part of the statistic, it's tremendously important to you and if you were to ask someone from the Department of Health and Human Services, they'd undoubtedly tell you that even one case is too many and justifies the most stringent methods at prevention.
Since voter fraud is an infection of our democracy, shouldn't we be as concerned about preventing it?
Actually, the incidents of voter fraud, particularly when it comes to fraudulent registration are rampant and easy to find with a simple internet search. And the interesting thing you find as you get into it is that the reported instances are a lot lower than they might be simply because elected officials and their appointees charged with enforcing the laws on this ( almost always Democrats) frequently fail to investigate and prosecute.
An example I'm personally familiar with involves Bob Dornan, a long time conservative California Republican congressman whose district was redrawn by the Democrat majority in Sacramento. In 1996, Dornan was defeated for re-election by Democrat Loretta Sanchez by a mere 984 votes.
Congressman Dornan charged that there had been massive election fraud in his district involving non-citizens. Dornan did his own investigation and said that that there were at least 1,789 illegal voters, and perhaps more. According to John Funds' book Stealing Elections, the INS did an investigation on its own in 1996 into alleged Motor Voter fraud in California's Forty-sixth Congressional District and found that based on registrations that didn't match up: "4,023 illegal voters possibly cast ballots in the disputed election between Republican Robert Dornan and Democrat Loretta Sanchez." (p. 24).
The House Contested Elections Committee in the Spring of 1997 did a cursory investigation of its own and came up with proof that 547 non-citizens voted in Orange County and that 303 more had been registered to vote in the 46th District by Hermandad Nacional Mexicana, a non profit funded with government grants that actively registered non-citizens to vote and instructed them
on how to mark their absentee ballots.
So at the least, you could say that Dornan had a case and that this called for a thorough investigation by the Department of Justice.
The end result? Democrat Attorney General Janet Reno formally declined to investigate, based on her subjective judgment that 'not enough fraud occurred' to change the results and of course, possibly unseat a Democrat member of Congress.
Want more? One of the most recent well-publicized voter fraud cases occurred in the Washington State governor’s race in November 2004 in which Democrat Christine Gregoire allegedly defeated Republican Dino Rossi by just 129 votes after weeks of vote counting.
Later, the Washington State Superior Court found that 1,400 felons voted illegally, along with illegal votes cast by 53 dead people, two non-citizens and 27 double votes. Since Washington State does not have party voter registration, there was no way of proving exactly how they voted, so the judge ruled there was not enough proof to void the election. However, it's worth mentioning that almost all of the violations occurred in the Democrat stronghold of King County. You might remember that one,because it involved a number of voters claiming the address of the State Democrat party headquarters in Seattle their 'residence'. A similar tactic seems to have been used in this recent case in Wisconsin.
There are numerous other incidents I could cite. For instance, you could spend hours reading about President Obama's old friends at ACORN.
The core of the problem stems from a really bad piece of legislation, passed,of course by a Democrat-dominated Congress. President Clinton's National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) known as the Motor-Voter law makes voter registration virtually automatic when you apply for a driver's license and called for distributing registration applications in state welfare offices. Under this law, the information supplied by the applicant for a license doubles as information for voter registration unless the applicant indicates that he/she doesn't want to be registered. It also has restrictions that prevent states from culling the rolls in a timely manner to eliminate dead people and people whom may no longer be residents in the area or whom have lost their voting rights due to felony convictions.
Since several states now issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens, the voting rolls have become clogged with a number of people who are not entitled to vote. There was a move in Congress to change the law to not include voter registration for non-citizens in 1998. It was narrowly defeated, with nearly every Democrat in Congress voting against.
It's also worth mentioning that for illegal aliens, a voter registration card is one of the proofs of citizenship legally allowed to be used to help establish identity for the purposes of 'legal' employment. That and a social security card are all you need.
And then, there's my own experience. When I drove my elderly mother to the polls in California to vote I stood in line next to her. After my mom finished signing in, the poll worker asked me my name, to which I responded jokingly 'Chauffeur'. My mom told the pol worker "That's my son", after which the poll worker responded "I'll mark him down as living at the same address' and handed me a ballot. I was not even asked for an ID. And yes, I gave it back to the poll worker.
The other side to voter fraud is vote suppression. Again, the chief culprits seem to be Democrats and the chief victims military voters stationed overseas.
It's pretty well known that Al Gore and his team used technicalities and friendly Democrat appointed officials to disqualify the ballots of almost 2,000 members of our military serving overseas in the 2000 Florida presidential election.
What's less well known is that this process wasn't limited to Florida, and was so egregious by the 2008 election that Congress passed the Federal Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (the MOVE Act), which among other things mandated that ballots be in the hands of our military no less than 45 days prior to elections.
Eric Holder and the Obama Department of Justice dealt with that prior to the 2010 midterms by by engaging in a systematic campaign to encourage states to seek waivers not to comply with the laws and suppress the military vote, a constituency that was perceived by them as largely Republican.As you might expect,Congress found out in a subsequent investigation when it was too late to do anything about it that the worst offenders were states and counties run by Democrats. In fact, the Justice Department employee who was the chief contact person in encouraging jurisdictions not to comply with the law was actually promoted.
Voter fraud 'negligible'? Again, I guess it depends on who's counting. And of course, who benefits.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Mixed Results In Ohio
The results are in from the key off year election in Ohio, and they're positively schizoid.
The public employee unions and the Democrats spent almost $40 million to defeat Governor Kasich's Senate Bill 5, which limited public employee union's collective bargaining rights on health coverage costs, pensions and wages and gave city councils and school boards the right to impose a 'take it or leave it' final contract offer if management and the union do not reach a settlement.
The bill unwisely including police and firemen, which gave the unions a major issue to work with that ultimately proved successful.
I'd say this was excellent news for President Obama's re-election except for the fact that Ohioans also passed a major repudiation of the president by approving an amendment to the state constitution blocking any sort of individual health care mandate in Ohio by better than a 2-1 margin.
In Ohio, as in most other locations, ObamaCare is about as popular as poisoning puppies.
So, what do we make out of these disparate results from the Buckeye State?
The way I see it, the president is quite unpopular in Ohio, but no one's exactly fallen in love with the Republican field yet. But given an issue that can be massaged as 'worker's rights' and 'supporting our police and firemen' Ohio voters can still be pushed leftwards, especially in an off-year with low turnout.
I don't think that translates into a great wave of affection for the current occupant of the White House and his policies, but we shall see.
Mixed Results In Ohio
The results are in from the key off year election in Ohio, and they're positively schizoid.
The public employee unions and the Democrats spent almost $40 million to defeat Governor Kasich's Senate Bill 5, which limited public employee union's collective bargaining rights on health coverage costs, pensions and wages and gave city councils and school boards the right to impose a 'take it or leave it' final contract offer if management and the union do not reach a settlement.
The bill unwisely including police and firemen, which gave the unions a major issue to work with that ultimately proved successful.
I'd say this was excellent news for President Obama's re-election except for the fact that Ohioans also passed a major repudiation of the president by approving an amendment to the state constitution blocking any sort of individual health care mandate in Ohio by better than a 2-1 margin.
In Ohio, as in most other locations, ObamaCare is about as popular as poisoning puppies.
So, what do we make out of these disparate results from the Buckeye State?
The way I see it, the president is quite unpopular in Ohio, but no one's exactly fallen in love with the Republican field yet. But given an issue that can be massaged as 'worker's rights' and 'supporting our police and firemen' Ohio voters can still be pushed leftwards, especially in an off-year with low turnout.
I don't think that translates into a great wave of affection for the current occupant of the White House and his policies, but we shall see.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Tunisia's Elections...'Arab Spring' Or Islamist Takeover?
Tunisia is holding elections today for the 217-seat assembly that will draft a constitution and appoint an interim government. Former President Zinedine el-Abidine Ben Ali was overthrown nine months ago.
Regardless of what some of the usual suspects are saying, this is not going to be some kind of signpost as to where the other elections in the region will be heading.Tunisia is unique in that a higher percentage of its population is literate and has a degree of education than say, Egypt, tribalism is not a major factor as it is in Libya, and Tunisia was always a more moderate country than either. Unique in the Arab world, the country even actually has a tiny Jewish population, with an historic synagogue on the Island of Djerba and a small one in Tunis. However, there were a number of indications from the demonstrations that this tolerance could change rapidly,particularly if an Islamist regime comes to power.
In spite of Tunisia's moderate image, an Islamist party, Ennahda, ( formerly Al-Nahda) is expected to win the most votes, although it may not gain enough seats to win a parliamentary majority. It's chief secular opponent is likely to be the Left-leaning, Progressive Democratic Party (PDP), led by Najib Chebbi.
Ennahda and its leader Rachid Ghannouchi have made a point, particularly in the cities, of reassuring Tunisians of their commitment to democracy and women's rights.The PDP favors a secular, European style socialist government.Significantly Ghannouchi has said that he considers the Islamism of Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan and the AKP as a model, which means essentially that he likes the tactics of a gradual takeover, turning a formerly moderate Muslim country into an Islamist state bit by bit.
Results are expected Monday.
Regardless of what some of the usual suspects are saying, this is not going to be some kind of signpost as to where the other elections in the region will be heading.Tunisia is unique in that a higher percentage of its population is literate and has a degree of education than say, Egypt, tribalism is not a major factor as it is in Libya, and Tunisia was always a more moderate country than either. Unique in the Arab world, the country even actually has a tiny Jewish population, with an historic synagogue on the Island of Djerba and a small one in Tunis. However, there were a number of indications from the demonstrations that this tolerance could change rapidly,particularly if an Islamist regime comes to power.
In spite of Tunisia's moderate image, an Islamist party, Ennahda, ( formerly Al-Nahda) is expected to win the most votes, although it may not gain enough seats to win a parliamentary majority. It's chief secular opponent is likely to be the Left-leaning, Progressive Democratic Party (PDP), led by Najib Chebbi.
Ennahda and its leader Rachid Ghannouchi have made a point, particularly in the cities, of reassuring Tunisians of their commitment to democracy and women's rights.The PDP favors a secular, European style socialist government.Significantly Ghannouchi has said that he considers the Islamism of Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan and the AKP as a model, which means essentially that he likes the tactics of a gradual takeover, turning a formerly moderate Muslim country into an Islamist state bit by bit.
Results are expected Monday.
Tunisia's Elections...'Arab Spring' Or Islamist Takeover?
Tunisia is holding elections today for the 217-seat assembly that will draft a constitution and appoint an interim government. Former President Zinedine el-Abidine Ben Ali was overthrown nine months ago.
Regardless of what some of the usual suspects are saying, this is not going to be some kind of signpost as to where the other elections in the region will be heading.Tunisia is unique in that a higher percentage of its population is literate and has a degree of education than say, Egypt, tribalism is not a major factor as it is in Libya, and Tunisia was always a more moderate country than either. Unique in the Arab world, the country even actually has a tiny Jewish population, with an historic synagogue on the Island of Djerba and a small one in Tunis. However, there were a number of indications from the demonstrations that this tolerance could change rapidly,particularly if an Islamist regime comes to power.
In spite of Tunisia's moderate image, an Islamist party, Ennahda, ( formerly Al-Nahda) is expected to win the most votes, although it may not gain enough seats to win a parliamentary majority. It's chief secular opponent is likely to be the Left-leaning, Progressive Democratic Party (PDP), led by Najib Chebbi.
Ennahda and its leader Rachid Ghannouchi have made a point, particularly in the cities, of reassuring Tunisians of their commitment to democracy and women's rights.The PDP favors a secular, European style socialist government.Significantly Ghannouchi has said that he considers the Islamism of Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan and the AKP as a model, which means essentially that he likes the tactics of a gradual takeover, turning a formerly moderate Muslim country into an Islamist state bit by bit.
Results are expected Monday.
Regardless of what some of the usual suspects are saying, this is not going to be some kind of signpost as to where the other elections in the region will be heading.Tunisia is unique in that a higher percentage of its population is literate and has a degree of education than say, Egypt, tribalism is not a major factor as it is in Libya, and Tunisia was always a more moderate country than either. Unique in the Arab world, the country even actually has a tiny Jewish population, with an historic synagogue on the Island of Djerba and a small one in Tunis. However, there were a number of indications from the demonstrations that this tolerance could change rapidly,particularly if an Islamist regime comes to power.
In spite of Tunisia's moderate image, an Islamist party, Ennahda, ( formerly Al-Nahda) is expected to win the most votes, although it may not gain enough seats to win a parliamentary majority. It's chief secular opponent is likely to be the Left-leaning, Progressive Democratic Party (PDP), led by Najib Chebbi.
Ennahda and its leader Rachid Ghannouchi have made a point, particularly in the cities, of reassuring Tunisians of their commitment to democracy and women's rights.The PDP favors a secular, European style socialist government.Significantly Ghannouchi has said that he considers the Islamism of Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan and the AKP as a model, which means essentially that he likes the tactics of a gradual takeover, turning a formerly moderate Muslim country into an Islamist state bit by bit.
Results are expected Monday.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Big Government's Next Battlefield - Ohio's Referendum On Public Employee Unions
There's a little watched off year election I'd recommend you keep your eye on taking place in the Buckeye State.
It concerns an attempt to repeal Senate Bill 5, the signature legislative achievement of Governor John Kasich that curbs, for the first time, collective bargaining leverage for the public employee unions.
As in many other states, particularly those run for years by Democrats, Ohio has a severe budget crisis brought on by the circle jerk relationship between the Public employee unions and the Democrats in Columbus.
The game's pretty simple, has taken place in a great many states and amounts to an ingenious scam to fund and elect the Democrats at public expense. It starts when the Democrats push through laws giving public employee unions massive collective bargaining rights and closed shops. In turn, the unions provide manpower at election time and campaign cash taken directly from the salaries of all employees regardless of party and paid for by all taxpayers regardless of their political leanings. The Democrats get back into office ( with perhaps a bigger majority) and the unions find themselves 'negotiating' for raises and increased benefits with the exact politicians they just helped elect, and a nice chunk of the raises end up being kicked back again to the Democrats.
In some Blue States like California, the public employee unions enjoy legislatively mandated pensions that must pay retirees at a certain percentage of their final salary no matter how well the state's pension fund does. California's public employee unions responded to this largesse by investing their pension funds in the riskiest derivatives, figuring that if things worked out well their war chests would swell and give them increased leverage for bargaining with politicians for increased benefits and pay through campaign contributions. If things didn't go so well, the benefits still had to be paid by state law.
As a result of this roulette whirl on the taxpayer's dime, California's unfunded pension liabilities are close to a trillion dollars and are a major factor in effectively bankrupting what used to be the richest state in the union.
In Ohio, Governor Kasich and a Republican dominated legislature made the decision to stave off insolvency by passing Senate Bill 5. It limits public employee union's collective bargaining rights on health coverage costs, pensions and wages and gives city councils and school boards the right to impose a 'take it or leave it' final contract offer if management and the union do not reach a settlement. It also requires government workers to pay at least 15 percent of their health insurance costs and pay 10 percent of their salaries toward their pensions... still a far better deal than most private sector employees if they're lucky enough to have a job with benefits.
The public employee unions and Ohio Democrats jumped on this after the measure was passed in March and collected collected 1.3 million signatures to place the repeal vote on the Nov. 8 ballot. The national Democratic Party is now involved, and the anti-Senate Bill 5 forces, under the name We Are Ohio have spent an estimated $5 million already. At present the repeal is ahead in the polls, although the lead has been dropping sharply as anti-repeal forces whose umbrella organization is Building a Better Ohio have begin fighting back to block repeal of the law.
This is a major battle that's going to help decide not only the 2012 presidential election but the bigger question of whether America continues to go broke as it succumbs to the smothering morass of Big Government or returns to its traditional values.
If repeal fails, other states are likely going to follow the lead of Ohio and Wisconsin to curb the public employee unions and it will be a good indication that President Obama can pretty much kiss Ohio's 18 electoral votes bye bye.
If repeal wins, it will be the best political news the president has had in a long time.
Some clarity...this isn't at all about management vs. labor or union rights, but about ending a dysfunctional and increasingly dangerous scheme to fund the Democratic Party at public expense that simply isn't sustainable any more.
It's that simple.
It concerns an attempt to repeal Senate Bill 5, the signature legislative achievement of Governor John Kasich that curbs, for the first time, collective bargaining leverage for the public employee unions.
As in many other states, particularly those run for years by Democrats, Ohio has a severe budget crisis brought on by the circle jerk relationship between the Public employee unions and the Democrats in Columbus.
The game's pretty simple, has taken place in a great many states and amounts to an ingenious scam to fund and elect the Democrats at public expense. It starts when the Democrats push through laws giving public employee unions massive collective bargaining rights and closed shops. In turn, the unions provide manpower at election time and campaign cash taken directly from the salaries of all employees regardless of party and paid for by all taxpayers regardless of their political leanings. The Democrats get back into office ( with perhaps a bigger majority) and the unions find themselves 'negotiating' for raises and increased benefits with the exact politicians they just helped elect, and a nice chunk of the raises end up being kicked back again to the Democrats.
In some Blue States like California, the public employee unions enjoy legislatively mandated pensions that must pay retirees at a certain percentage of their final salary no matter how well the state's pension fund does. California's public employee unions responded to this largesse by investing their pension funds in the riskiest derivatives, figuring that if things worked out well their war chests would swell and give them increased leverage for bargaining with politicians for increased benefits and pay through campaign contributions. If things didn't go so well, the benefits still had to be paid by state law.
As a result of this roulette whirl on the taxpayer's dime, California's unfunded pension liabilities are close to a trillion dollars and are a major factor in effectively bankrupting what used to be the richest state in the union.
In Ohio, Governor Kasich and a Republican dominated legislature made the decision to stave off insolvency by passing Senate Bill 5. It limits public employee union's collective bargaining rights on health coverage costs, pensions and wages and gives city councils and school boards the right to impose a 'take it or leave it' final contract offer if management and the union do not reach a settlement. It also requires government workers to pay at least 15 percent of their health insurance costs and pay 10 percent of their salaries toward their pensions... still a far better deal than most private sector employees if they're lucky enough to have a job with benefits.
The public employee unions and Ohio Democrats jumped on this after the measure was passed in March and collected collected 1.3 million signatures to place the repeal vote on the Nov. 8 ballot. The national Democratic Party is now involved, and the anti-Senate Bill 5 forces, under the name We Are Ohio have spent an estimated $5 million already. At present the repeal is ahead in the polls, although the lead has been dropping sharply as anti-repeal forces whose umbrella organization is Building a Better Ohio have begin fighting back to block repeal of the law.
This is a major battle that's going to help decide not only the 2012 presidential election but the bigger question of whether America continues to go broke as it succumbs to the smothering morass of Big Government or returns to its traditional values.
If repeal fails, other states are likely going to follow the lead of Ohio and Wisconsin to curb the public employee unions and it will be a good indication that President Obama can pretty much kiss Ohio's 18 electoral votes bye bye.
If repeal wins, it will be the best political news the president has had in a long time.
Some clarity...this isn't at all about management vs. labor or union rights, but about ending a dysfunctional and increasingly dangerous scheme to fund the Democratic Party at public expense that simply isn't sustainable any more.
It's that simple.
Big Government's Next Battlefield - Ohio's Referendum On Public Employee Unions
There's a little watched off year election I'd recommend you keep your eye on taking place in the Buckeye State.
It concerns an attempt to repeal Senate Bill 5, the signature legislative achievement of Governor John Kasich that curbs, for the first time, collective bargaining leverage for the public employee unions.
As in many other states, particularly those run for years by Democrats, Ohio has a severe budget crisis brought on by the circle jerk relationship between the Public employee unions and the Democrats in Columbus.
The game's pretty simple, has taken place in a great many states and amounts to an ingenious scam to fund and elect the Democrats at public expense. It starts when the Democrats push through laws giving public employee unions massive collective bargaining rights and closed shops. In turn, the unions provide manpower at election time and campaign cash taken directly from the salaries of all employees regardless of party and paid for by all taxpayers regardless of their political leanings. The Democrats get back into office ( with perhaps a bigger majority) and the unions find themselves 'negotiating' for raises and increased benefits with the exact politicians they just helped elect, and a nice chunk of the raises end up being kicked back again to the Democrats.
In some Blue States like California, the public employee unions enjoy legislatively mandated pensions that must pay retirees at a certain percentage of their final salary no matter how well the state's pension fund does. California's public employee unions responded to this largesse by investing their pension funds in the riskiest derivatives, figuring that if things worked out well their war chests would swell and give them increased leverage for bargaining with politicians for increased benefits and pay through campaign contributions. If things didn't go so well, the benefits still had to be paid by state law.
As a result of this roulette whirl on the taxpayer's dime, California's unfunded pension liabilities are close to a trillion dollars and are a major factor in effectively bankrupting what used to be the richest state in the union.
In Ohio, Governor Kasich and a Republican dominated legislature made the decision to stave off insolvency by passing Senate Bill 5. It limits public employee union's collective bargaining rights on health coverage costs, pensions and wages and gives city councils and school boards the right to impose a 'take it or leave it' final contract offer if management and the union do not reach a settlement. It also requires government workers to pay at least 15 percent of their health insurance costs and pay 10 percent of their salaries toward their pensions... still a far better deal than most private sector employees if they're lucky enough to have a job with benefits.
The public employee unions and Ohio Democrats jumped on this after the measure was passed in March and collected collected 1.3 million signatures to place the repeal vote on the Nov. 8 ballot. The national Democratic Party is now involved, and the anti-Senate Bill 5 forces, under the name We Are Ohio have spent an estimated $5 million already. At present the repeal is ahead in the polls, although the lead has been dropping sharply as anti-repeal forces whose umbrella organization is Building a Better Ohio have begin fighting back to block repeal of the law.
This is a major battle that's going to help decide not only the 2012 presidential election but the bigger question of whether America continues to go broke as it succumbs to the smothering morass of Big Government or returns to its traditional values.
If repeal fails, other states are likely going to follow the lead of Ohio and Wisconsin to curb the public employee unions and it will be a good indication that President Obama can pretty much kiss Ohio's 18 electoral votes bye bye.
If repeal wins, it will be the best political news the president has had in a long time.
Some clarity...this isn't at all about management vs. labor or union rights, but about ending a dysfunctional and increasingly dangerous scheme to fund the Democratic Party at public expense that simply isn't sustainable any more.
It's that simple.
It concerns an attempt to repeal Senate Bill 5, the signature legislative achievement of Governor John Kasich that curbs, for the first time, collective bargaining leverage for the public employee unions.
As in many other states, particularly those run for years by Democrats, Ohio has a severe budget crisis brought on by the circle jerk relationship between the Public employee unions and the Democrats in Columbus.
The game's pretty simple, has taken place in a great many states and amounts to an ingenious scam to fund and elect the Democrats at public expense. It starts when the Democrats push through laws giving public employee unions massive collective bargaining rights and closed shops. In turn, the unions provide manpower at election time and campaign cash taken directly from the salaries of all employees regardless of party and paid for by all taxpayers regardless of their political leanings. The Democrats get back into office ( with perhaps a bigger majority) and the unions find themselves 'negotiating' for raises and increased benefits with the exact politicians they just helped elect, and a nice chunk of the raises end up being kicked back again to the Democrats.
In some Blue States like California, the public employee unions enjoy legislatively mandated pensions that must pay retirees at a certain percentage of their final salary no matter how well the state's pension fund does. California's public employee unions responded to this largesse by investing their pension funds in the riskiest derivatives, figuring that if things worked out well their war chests would swell and give them increased leverage for bargaining with politicians for increased benefits and pay through campaign contributions. If things didn't go so well, the benefits still had to be paid by state law.
As a result of this roulette whirl on the taxpayer's dime, California's unfunded pension liabilities are close to a trillion dollars and are a major factor in effectively bankrupting what used to be the richest state in the union.
In Ohio, Governor Kasich and a Republican dominated legislature made the decision to stave off insolvency by passing Senate Bill 5. It limits public employee union's collective bargaining rights on health coverage costs, pensions and wages and gives city councils and school boards the right to impose a 'take it or leave it' final contract offer if management and the union do not reach a settlement. It also requires government workers to pay at least 15 percent of their health insurance costs and pay 10 percent of their salaries toward their pensions... still a far better deal than most private sector employees if they're lucky enough to have a job with benefits.
The public employee unions and Ohio Democrats jumped on this after the measure was passed in March and collected collected 1.3 million signatures to place the repeal vote on the Nov. 8 ballot. The national Democratic Party is now involved, and the anti-Senate Bill 5 forces, under the name We Are Ohio have spent an estimated $5 million already. At present the repeal is ahead in the polls, although the lead has been dropping sharply as anti-repeal forces whose umbrella organization is Building a Better Ohio have begin fighting back to block repeal of the law.
This is a major battle that's going to help decide not only the 2012 presidential election but the bigger question of whether America continues to go broke as it succumbs to the smothering morass of Big Government or returns to its traditional values.
If repeal fails, other states are likely going to follow the lead of Ohio and Wisconsin to curb the public employee unions and it will be a good indication that President Obama can pretty much kiss Ohio's 18 electoral votes bye bye.
If repeal wins, it will be the best political news the president has had in a long time.
Some clarity...this isn't at all about management vs. labor or union rights, but about ending a dysfunctional and increasingly dangerous scheme to fund the Democratic Party at public expense that simply isn't sustainable any more.
It's that simple.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)