June 26-28, 2012
Jun 26 02:22 President Obama, immigration scofflaw Jun 26 03:57 Who best represents the Range? Conservation Minnesota or the GOP? Jun 26 09:24 Breaking: Democrats out of money Jun 27 00:24 Fast & Furious smoking gun? Jun 27 03:05 President Obama poised to ground FFDO program Jun 27 11:51 AFT-NH's questionnaire is pro-government, not pro-growth Jun 28 03:55 Exposing Our Vote, Our Future's misinformation campaign Jun 28 11:49 Chief Justice Roberts gets it horribly wrong
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
President Obama, immigration scofflaw
President Obama's political decision to rescind the federal government's pact with Arizona is proof positive that President Obama won't enforce the federal government's laws. He's essentially become the first US Scofflaw-in-Chief. Predictably, Arizona law enforcement is reacting to the Scofflaw-in-Chief's edict. First, here's what Gov. Brewer said about the Scofflaw-in-Chief's decision:
'As though we needed any more evidence, President Obama has demonstrated anew his utter disregard for the safety and security of the Arizona people. Within the last two hours, I have been notified the Obama administration has revoked the 287(g) agreement under the authority of which Arizona law enforcement officers have partnered with the federal government in the enforcement of immigration law.
'Of course, it is no coincidence that this announcement comes immediately on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling upholding the constitutionality of the heart of Arizona's anti-illegal immigration law: SB 1070. It's worth noting that 68 law enforcement entities in 24 states have functioning 287(g) agreements with the federal government. But it appears the only agreements eliminated today were those in Arizona, the state that happens to be on the front lines of America's fight against illegal immigration. We are on our own, apparently.
'I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. The Obama administration has fought the people of Arizona at every turn, downplaying the threat that a porous border poses to our citizens, filing suit in order to block our State from protecting itself, unilaterally granting immunity to tens of thousands of illegal aliens living in our midst, and now this. Still, the disarmament of Arizona's 287(g) agreements is a new low, even for this administration.
President Obama has exceptionally thin skin. He also isn't much into enforcing laws that past congresses have passed and previous presidents have signed into law. Today's decision to undercut Arizona's ability to protect its people is the greatest abdication of a president's domestic responsibilities in the past 25 years.
Arizona is Ground Zero of the immigration battle. Their citizens have been tortured, held hostage or murdered outright. Despite those facts, the federal government has turned a blind eye towards Arizona.
Here's what Rep. Jeff Flake said:
Mesa, Arizona - Republican Congressman Jeff Flake, who represents Arizona's Sixth District, today criticized the Obama Administration's suspension of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Immigration and Nationality Act Section 287(g) program in Arizona, which allows local authorities to partner with federal law enforcement agencies to carry out certain immigration enforcement functions. ICE announced today that with the suspension of the 287(g) program, their agents will not respond to a scene in which a person's immigration status is in question unless that person is a convicted criminal, has been removed from the US previously and reentered unlawfully, or is a recent border crosser.
'Suspending this program will strip our local authorities of critical tools to deal with illegal immigration,' said Flake. 'The Obama Administration is effectively broadcasting that unless an illegal immigrant is wanted for a crime, the attention of ICE isn't warranted.'
President Obama campaigned against President Bush and Bush's "imperial presidency." It's ironic that his administration is selectively, and intermittenly, enforcing the laws on the books. President Obama has become what he campaigned against.
KrisAnne Hall, whom I met at this year's RightOnline Conference, wrote this brilliant article about Monday's opinion written by Anthony Kennedy. I found this part particularly compelling:
Not only is this ruling devoid of any appeal to the Constitution, it is very dangerous. It is an aberration of fundamental Constitutional principles and a brazen assault on state sovereignty! Chiefly, Kennedy takes the Supremacy clause of the Constitution, which declares that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and translates that principle into the supremacy of the Federal government over the states. There couldn't be anything more contrary to our founders' intent. Let me repeat: this opinion is a monumental assault on the sovereignty of the states.
Article I section 8 clause 4 of the Constitution states that Congress has the power [t]o establish an uniform rule of naturalization. The purpose of the federal government in the case of immigration, as Justice Kennedy appropriately acknowledges is 'to be a single voice of the nation for foreign relations.'
This external focus is in line with James Madison's directive that: 'The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce.
Justice Kennedy's ruling allowed President Obama to continue his disastrous, dangerous policies that endanger people. If Justice Kennedy had the final say in the matter, state sovereignty would've disappeared midway through his intellectually flimsy opinion.
Tags: President Obama , Illegal Immigration , State Sovereignty , Anthony Kennedy , Supremacy Clause , Constitution , SCOTUS , Law Enforcement , Public Safety
Posted Tuesday, June 26, 2012 2:22 AM
No comments.
Who best represents the Range? Conservation Minnesota or the GOP?
It's a long-held belief that the DFL best represents northern Minnesota. To a degree, that's still true, especially in the parts that environmentalists rule the roost.
Chip Cravaack's victory proved that the door is opening for the GOP. Carolyn McElfatrick's victory over Loren Solberg is proof that that door might be open wider than the DFL is willing to admit.
I wrote this post in the hopes of proving that the DFL isn't supportive of the Iron Rangers. Tonight, I'm taking a different approach. Conservation Minnesota has a team of strategic advisors. Here's who serves as strategic advisors:
Arne Carlson
Dave Durenberger
Dean Johnson
Dee Long
Jim Ramstad
Paul Aasen
Margaret Anderson-Kelliher
Tom Horner
Here's Conservation Minnesota's agenda :
Conservation Minnesota , Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness and the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy are targeting the proposed PolyMet mine near Hoyt Lakes and the proposed Twin Metals mine near Ely .
Outsiders to the Range are trying to tell Rangers what's best for them. That's insulting. The only strategic advisor that doesn't live in the Twin Cities is Dean Johnson. The rest of them live in the Twin Cities. What do they know about the Iron Range's needs?
Let's compare that with the GOP. Chip Cravaack has done a terrific job staying in touch with his constituents . They appreciate the job he's done, too, as evidenced by the fact that he's had an army of volunteers at all of the parades on the range.
The pictures in this post say that 15 volunteers showed up at the Peter Mitchell Days Parade in Babbitt. The DFL was nowhere to be found.
Whether the Range tips to the GOP in 2012, 2014 or 2016, it will happen. The DFL's days of Range domination are coming to a halt. Chip Cravaack's and Carolyn McElfatrick's victories are just the leading indicators of that shift.
The bottom line is this: The Rangers can vote for DFL candidates that align themselves with anti-mining special interest groups from the Twin Cities. Otherwise, they can vote for GOP candidates that will vote to improve the economy on the range.
That's a pretty straightforward pick.
Tags: Chip Cravaack , Carolyn McElfatrick , Iron Range , Babbitt , Mining , GOP , Arne Carlson , Margaret Anderson-Kelliher , Dean Johnson , Jim Ramstad , Dee Long , Tom Horner , Conservation Minnesota , Dave Durenberger , DFL , Election 2012
Posted Tuesday, June 26, 2012 3:57 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 26-Jun-12 09:52 AM
Who best represents the earth? Who best represents the rest of us who might face unprecedented pollution levels if unconstrained mining capitalists are given free rein? Remember, the capitalist paradigm is to maximize profit as gross receipts less costs. By avoiding internalization of "rape of the earth" costs, and socializing it by simply opting for lousy housekeeping and inattentive stewardship of the land, profits ARE maximized. And you know that is the name of the game for Republican-dominated corporate interests.
Comment 2 by Terry Stone at 26-Jun-12 10:31 AM
The DFL could mitigate its unhappy decline into oblivion by shifting to the center. Instead, it continues to forward extremist socialist machine politicians who are anachronisms of an era of prosperity where a high level of corruption was affordable.
Bakk, Anzelc, Melin and Dill voted against the taxpayers on all 28 measures voted upon since their last election. These people are voting for metrocentric social and transit programs of no value to rural Minnesota.
As a rural Minnesotan, I and others need to protect ourselves from colorful socialist thinking like that of eric Z as expressed above.
Comment 3 by Katie at 27-Jun-12 01:06 PM
I beg to differ...Jeff Anderson who is running in the DFL primary for the chance to face Chip Cravaack in November has been a very vocal supporter of mining- both of existing ferrous projects and future non-ferrous projects. While I can't say one way or another if he was at Peter Mitchell Days, I know from watching his Facebook and blog that he has been very active on the Range getting the message out that mining is important to the economy of the 8th District and that it can be done in an environmentally sound manner. Carly Melin also very vocally opposed the anti-mining plank that was brought up at the DFL convention last month. I think voices like Jeff and Carly are going to be instrumental in getting the non-ferrous projects permitted. It is important to have mining supporters on both sides of the aisle to make things move. And while I have been disappointed with the state DFL party's anti mining stance, there are still plenty of Range DFL politicians and candidates who know how important mining is to our economy.
Breaking: Democrats out of money
The organizing committee for the Democrats' national convention is having difficulty raising money. That's why they've canceled their kickoff event :
Democrats canceled a political convention kick-off event at the Charlotte Motor Speedway and will move the activities to Charlotte's main business district, the convention's host committee announced.
'While we regret having to move CarolinaFest away from our great partners at the Charlotte Motor Speedway and the City of Concord, we are thrilled with the opportunity that comes with hosting this event in Uptown Charlotte,' said Dan Murrey, the executive director of the Charlotte in 2012 Convention Host Committee.
The move comes as party planners are grappling with a fundraising deficit of roughly $27 million, according to two people familiar with the matter who requested anonymity to discuss internal party politics. With a party ban on direct contributions from corporations, the host committee has raised less than $10 million, well short of its $36.6 million goal, said one of the people.
This is a major problem for Democrats. Their fundraising totals for their convention have been pathetic. A few weeks ago, they went with hat-in-hand to the unions to help pay for their convention.
That, apparently, didn't go well because they're changing their plans for their kickoff event. That's a major embarassment to the party. At a time when families are struggling, they'll trust the party that's got their financial house in order.
That Drudge headline screams 'financial disaster'. This tidbit of news indicates they're in deeper trouble than just the headline:
In January, Steve Kerrigan, chief executive officer of the convention committee, said that Democrats were shortening their convention from four days to three 'to make room for a day to organize and celebrate the Carolinas, Virginia and the South and kick off the convention at Charlotte Motor Speedway on Labor Day,' Sept. 3.
That's code for 'We can't afford to do a real convention so we're shortening it.' Forget about 2 steps forward, 1 step back. Democrats have been stepping backward most of the time this year.
What a fitting image for their campaign.
Tags: Democratic National Convention , Fundraising , Crisis , Unions , Burn Rate , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Tuesday, June 26, 2012 9:24 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 26-Jun-12 09:40 AM
Gary, explain to me, why can't both parties ditch their stupid conventions, save cash, and have "delegates" vote by the Internet? They get as tedious as that almost unending string of Republican debates, where to gin up attention the MSM was doing its Romney vs. the anti-Romney "bum of the month" thing. Do you really care about either convention. Romney can pick a Veep by press release.
Comment 2 by Terry Stone at 26-Jun-12 10:45 AM
The fundamentals of this story are solid and unchallenged; but I understand the urge to change the subject.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 26-Jun-12 04:22 PM
Eric:
It's a chance to showcase the party and the agenda. Not to mention there is a chance if a party is evenly divided you can have interesting circumstances. 1972 and 1980 floor fights for the Democrats, 1976 for the Republicans.
One thing that is forcing the parties to restrict them is the mainstream media is reducing the amount of focus they are being given.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Fast & Furious smoking gun?
Based on congressional testimony , Gen. Holder might have some difficult explaining to do:
A single internal Department of Justice email could be the smoking-gun document in the Operation Fast and Furious scandal, if it turns out to contain what congressional investigators have said it does.
The document would establish that wiretap application documents show senior DOJ officials knew about and approved the gunwalking tactic in Fast and Furious. This is the opposite of what Attorney General Eric Holder and House oversight committee ranking Democratic member Rep. Elijah Cummings have claimed.
If Chairman Issa can get his hands on these documents and if these documents contain what they purportedly contain, this would be a major problem for Mr. Holder. Here's why I think that's precisely what they contain:
'The ATF director, Kenneth Melson, sent an e-mail. And he had said to us in sworn testimony that, in fact, he had concerns,' Issa said. 'And we want to see that e-mail because that's an example where he was saying, if we believe his sworn testimony, that guns walked. And he said it shortly after February 4, and [on] July 4. When he told us that, we began asking for that document.'
That certainly isn't helpful for this administration. If it's verified, that's proof this administration lied to Chairman Issa's committee. Unfortunately for this administration, that isn't all:
Grassley pressed Holder on the question of how DOJ had the authority to withhold Melson's email from Congress, a full week before President Obama indicated that he would invoke executive privilege to shield requested documents. At that time, Holder claimed the Melson email would not be protected by executive privilege.
'On what legal ground are you withholding that email?' He asked. 'The president can't claim executive privilege to withhold that email, is that correct?'
'Well, let me just say this: We have reached out to Chairman Issa to work our way through these issues,' Holder filibustered. 'We have had sporadic contacts and we are prepared to make; I am prepared to make; compromises with regard to the documents that can be made available. There is a basis for withholding these documents if they deal with the deliberative.
'But not on executive privilege?' Grassley interrupted.
'No,' Holder responded.
The fact that Mr. Holder isn't giving Chairman Issa's committee a document that Mr. Holder says isn't justifiably protected by executive privilege means that there's information that the committee doesn't have that might hurt this administration both politically and legally. That's the only explanation that makes sense.
Regardless, Republicans need to intensify their pressure on Mr. Holder and this administration. They've got to speak out about this information with every press outlet that makes time available. This is a potentially game-changing piece of information.
Tags: President Obama , Executive Privilege , Eric Holder , Operation Fast And Furious , Scandal , Kenneth Melson , Elijah Cummings , Democrats , Darrell Issa , Oversight , GOP
Posted Wednesday, June 27, 2012 12:24 AM
No comments.
President Obama poised to ground FFDO program
Despite Chip Cravaack's fight to keep airplanes safe, President Obama intends to cut funding for the Federal Flight Deck Operations , aka the FFDO:
The Obama administration's hatred for the Second Amendment has reached new heights. After nearly a decade of safe operation, the White House is looking to reduce the number of pilots who provide an extra layer of security against airborne terror by packing a pistol in the cockpit. This plan shouldn't fly.
The federal flight-deck officer program was put in place as a direct response to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, when terrorists barged into the cockpits and seized control of airliners. The initiative provides $25.5 million for weapons training for pilots, including for cargo carriers and private charters. President Obama's budget would slash the amount in half.
Uncle Sam spends about $4,800 per pilot for the training administered by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), but aside from that, it doesn't suffer from the usual bureaucratic bloat. Participants must pay their own travel, lodging and meal expenses. About 10,000 pilots have been certified, but the Obama administration's goal is to see the number of armed aviators dwindle.
God forbid that President Obama let a successful, well-run program continue. Chip Cravaack has the facts on his side. He used those facts to grill DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano:
Chip Cravaack took the training. He flew these flights. He's an expert on this issue. Instead of listening to an experienced expert, President Obama and the most incompetent DHS secretary in US history essentially said "we know better."
With all due respect, they don't know better. If this decision is a matter of who's best equipped to make this decision, then it should be Chip Cravaack, not a pair of ideologues who don't have the first clue about this program.
This fits the pattern. President Obama's ego won't let him admit that he should listen to the experts. Secretary Napolitano's incompetence won't let her admit that she should let experts make the important decisions.
The reality is that this administration, especially Secretary Napolitano's part of it, is exceptionally incompetent. When this administration's epitaph is written, the word incompetent will have a prominent place in that epitaph.
Tags: President Obama , Janet Napolitano , National Security , Budget Cuts , DHS , FFDO , Democrats , Chip Cravaack , GOP
Posted Wednesday, June 27, 2012 3:05 AM
Comment 1 by Jethro at 27-Jun-12 08:55 AM
Chip knows this topic all too well. Reminds me of Potter's decision to close the aviation program. So much for consulting the experts
Comment 2 by Patrick at 27-Jun-12 09:58 AM
Of course they don't have to consult experts.... they consider themselves to be the experts. Stupid is is stupid does comes to mind.
Comment 3 by Nick at 27-Jun-12 01:25 PM
FFDO is cheaper than funding the Air Marshall's program. For more info, check out reason.org and search FFDO.
AFT-NH's questionnaire is pro-government, not pro-growth
This questionnaire is the candidate survey sent out to New Hampshire Legislative Candidates from the American Federation of Teachers in New Hampshire. To say that it isn't about the children is understatement. Here's a sampling of the most anti-taxpayer questions in the questionnaire:
- Would you vote for any weakening or repeal of collective bargaining laws for NH's public employees?
- Would you vote for any legislation that would limit the ability of a union to collect dues through a payroll deduction?
- Would you vote for any measures that would block the implementation of the Affordable Health Care Act?
- Do you support any proposed constitutional amendments such as CACR6 which would prohibit any increase in a tax or fee without a supermajority of lawmakers (60 percent) approving it?
- Do you support and would vote to provide an annual COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment) for retirees of the NH Retirement System?
- Would you vote to retain the current structure of the NH Retirement System as a defined benefit program or a defined contribution (401-k type) plan?
- Do you support so-called "voter-id" legislation that would create additional requirements for voting in NH?
- If elected, would you become a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)?
- Do you support diverting funds to charter schools?
- Would you vote for school vouchers?
There are 25 questions in the questionnaire. I just picked out the 11 most offensive questions. It isn't surprising that AFT-NH would include questions about charter schools and vouchers.
It's offensive, though, that they'd ask whether legislators would "divert funds to charter schools." The elected officials that represent the people have the authority to do what the people want. If they decide that funding charter schools will improve educational outcomes, then that's what they should do.
Wording it that funding charter schools is diverting money from union schools is offensive. I could argue that union schools are diverting money from higher quality schools.
It's painfully obvious that AFT-NH will fight hard to retain their defined benefits retirement plans. Potentially, that's a fight of epic proportions between the NH legislature and AFT-NH. The fight for automatic COLAs will potentially be a fight of epic proportions, too.
If NH is like most states, their PEU pension plans are badly underfunded. Within a decade, they'll have to take money from the state's general fund to meet their defined benefit plan obligations. That most likely means raising taxes so that other budgets don't get cut.
What's puzzling is why AFT-NH is interested in a politician's views on Photo ID. This questionnaire unquestionably looks out for the union's rank-and-file. Still, it tells us that AFT-NH's goals aren't society's goals. That's why their agenda isn't likely to get passed.
Tags: AFT-NH , Teachers Union , Charter Schools , Pension Plans , Defined Benefit , Defined Contribution , Photo ID , Endorsement , Election 2012
Posted Wednesday, June 27, 2012 11:51 AM
No comments.
Exposing Our Vote, Our Future's misinformation campaign
The increasingly desperate coalition of progressives trying to mount a campaign against the Photo ID ballot question have enlisted 2 politicians from Minnesota's past for the fight:
Former Democratic Vice President Walter Mondale and former Republican Gov. Arne Carlson became the public faces Tuesday of a fight against a proposed Minnesota constitutional amendment requiring voters to present photo IDs at the polls.
The legislature voted to improve Minnesota's election system, something that delegates to the DFL State Convention agreed was needed .
At the DFL State Convention, delegates debated whether to allow absentee ballots for their presidential straw poll, starting in 2016.Here's what Rick Varko, a delegate to the DFL convention from SD-64, said about using absentee ballots:
I don't believe that the Central Committee can come up with any mechanism that will genuinely prevent somebody from printing out a stack of absentee ballots, submitting them and getting them improper votes for a candidate.
Rick Varko's statement implies that it's possible to stuff ballot boxes. What Varko's statement implies, Chuck Repke's statement says explicitly:
You're setting yourself up for absolute insanity at the caucus level. The potential exists for someone from the Citizens United type to pack our caucuses with bought and paid for ballots. Absolutely guarantee the destruction of the precinct caucus process. There is no way to protect against that, folks, because we allow anyone to attend the caucus. We would therefore also have to let any absentee ballot to attend our precinct caucuses, regardless of which Koch Brother paid for it.
The trio of high profile politicians that Our Vote Our Future picked as their co-chairs have high name recognition. Unfortunately, their information can't be verified. In fact, it's easily discredited.
The biggest disappointment about this organization is that it's dishonest. This is a great example of their misinformation:
End Same-Day Voter Registration As We Know It.
Requiring a Photo ID to vote would end same-day registration as we know it, affecting the half-a-million voters who use it in general elections.
That's exceptionally misleading. While it's true that approximately 500,000 people use EDR on general elections, photo ID simply requires an adjustment on these voters' behalf. It isn't impossible for same day registrants to vote. People that use EDR have the option of presenting a state-issued Photo ID. Those people can cast a ballot immediately. People who use EDR that don't have a state-issued Photo ID can cast a provisional ballot. People casting a provisional ballot then have to return with their state-issued Photo ID, at which time their provisional ballot is counted. Here's why that's a worthwhile, important provision:
According to MN Secretary of State information, after the 2008 presidential election, about 26,000 postal verification cards sent to same day voter registrants were returned as undeliverable: no such person or no such address. Meantime, their votes were cast and counted! In total, during the 2008 calendar year, about 38,000 were returned as undeliverable.
According to Our Day, Our Vote's website, approximately 500,000 people use EDR (Election Day Registration) each general election. That means between 1 in 15 and 1 in 20 EDRs are filled out by people that we can't prove exist. What thoughtful person thinks that these people aren't committing voter fraud?
Here's another misleading tidbit of information:
Doesn't Solve a Problem.
Voter impersonation is the only type of voting fraud Photo ID would prevent. And there have been exactly zero cases of voter impersonation convictions here in Minnesota. ZERO.
It's impossible to find what Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Mansky refuse to look for. IMPOSSIBLE.
Also, that statement is totally misleading. The PVCs that were returned weren't filled out by people making honest mistakes. They were filled out by people intent on committing voter fraud.
Photo ID would've prevented voter fraud because the people that didn't present a state-issued Photo ID would've cast a provisional ballot that's only counted after the person's identity has been verified.
Also, voter impersonation isn't the only type of existing voter fraud that Photo ID will stop. It'll prevent this type of voter fraud :
RICK SMITHSON: On this particular night, between 10 and 13 people showed up for same day registration. They had all claimed that the local laundromat address as their residence. When we challenged it, we called the State Auditors Office and we were told that there was nothing we could do about it. We were told that we couldn't interfere with their right to vote but we could make note of it.
Three things are inescapable:
- Voter fraud exists.
- Not requiring a provisional ballot for EDRs makes counting corrupt ballots inevitable.
- Only Photo ID will eliminate this form of election fraud.
Vice President Mondale, Gov. Carlson and Rep. Penny can talk till they're blue in the face about how Minnesota's election system is airtight. Their statements can't refute the facts I've just presented. This lie is so disgraceful that it utterly discredits these so-called elder statesmen:
The Photo ID amendment seeks to take away the voting rights of law-abiding citizens, preventing the elderly, our troops stationed abroad, students, people of color, veterans and countless others from voting.
There isn't an ounce of truth in any of those statements. That's typical of the Left, though. It's their habit to accuse their opponents of being evil when their opponents defeat them in a fair debate.
Whether it's calling people racists or whether it's alleging that conservatives want to take people's right to vote away, it's inevitable that progressives will attempt to villify people they disagree with. Don't pay attention to the 3 high profile politicians. Pay attention to the discredited agenda they're pushing.
Tags: Our Vote, Our Future , Walter Mondale , Arne Carlson , Tim Penny , Election Day Registration , Provisional Ballots , Voter Impersonation , Voter Fraud , PVCs , DFL , Rick Smithson , Election Judge , Election 2012
Posted Thursday, June 28, 2012 3:55 AM
Comment 1 by Patrick at 04-Jul-12 06:38 AM
Conservatives need to use liberal language to make their case: The lack of verified photo ID disenfranchises me as I have no way of knowing for certain that my vote is not canceled out by a non-qualified voter.
Comment 2 by Cailin Rogers at 17-Sep-12 04:20 PM
Unfortunately for the authors of this article, this information is patently false. In all studies researching voter fraud almost ZERO amount have ever been found (even those undertaken under the watch of George W. Bush). Any amount of this so-called "rampant" or "serious" voter fraud has had negligible effects on election results.
I would also like to point out that the authors of this article cannot even spell the names of the people they are quoting correctly. Rick Varco, folks. Not Varko.
I'll refer you to the MN United campaign for all of the myriad reasons why voting yes is a terrible decision on November 6th.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 17-Sep-12 05:42 PM
Ms. Rogers, what method did these studies use in determining voter fraud doesn't exist? Ms. Rogers, why would Jimmy Carter & James A. Baker III recommend the implementation of photo ID to increase election integrity?
In a nation where identity theft is all too real, why should we think that people aren't willing to steal elections to maintain power?
I don't doubt that Ms. Rogers believes passionately in what she's saying. I'm just certain that voting yes for Photo ID is the right thing to do.
Comment 3 by Elliott at 21-Sep-12 03:16 AM
"The PVCs that were returned weren't filled out by people making honest mistakes. They were filled out by people intent on committing voter fraud."
I don't see how you come to that conclusion. Couldn't they just be homeless? What is someone without an address supposed to do when a form asks for their address?
Of course there's risk of fraud when voters are untraceable, but it's unfair to assume that these people had malicious intent.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 21-Sep-12 06:21 AM
It's possible that some of the voter registrations were filled in by homeless people but it's certain that thousands of them were filled out by homeless people.
Chief Justice Roberts gets it horribly wrong
In today's landmark decision, Chief Justice Roberts's majority opinion was badly wrong from a constitutional standpoint. The vast majority of Americans think that the PPACA is horrible legislation and terrible policy.
That isn't why I'm arguing that Chief Justice Roberts got it wrong. Instead, I'm arguing that Chief Justice Roberts got it wrong because he's essentially ruled that the courts have the right to rewrite the legislation.
In the original draft of the legislation, there was a specific section of the legislation that dealt specifically with taxes. It's absurd to think that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court can simply rewrite legislation.
That's what Chief Justice Roberts did. Congress didn't include the mandate in the section on taxes. People remember President Obama's interview with George Stephanopoulos where President Obama repeatedly insisted that the mandate wasn't a tax. Only when it got into the courts did they start calling it a tax.
Chief Justice Roberts might make many wonderful rulings during his time as Chief Justice but his legacy will be sullied by this ruling. He didn't just call balls and strikes this time. Instead, he appropriated for himself the authority to rewrite the PPACA.
That's what activists do. Judicial historians will note that.
Most importantly, the American people will be repulsed by the decision, mostly because it kept intact legislation that hurts the American people.
Aside for the activist aspects of this ruling, the reality is that this ruling gives employers another major reason to not hire. It gives small businesses with 40-45 employees justification not to hire that fiftieth employee.
There are two bits of good news despite this ruling. One tidbit of good news is that other cases are working their way through the system. The other tidbit of good news is that this will motivate voters to defeat the people that initially gave us this job-killing monstrosity.
There's no question that President Obama will get a temporary surge after this ruling. There's no question, though, that this is a net negative for President Obama because he's got to defend this terrible legislation the next 4 months.
Tags: President Obama , John Roberts , PPACA , Individual Mandate , Tax Increases , Constitution , Judicial Activism , SCOTUS
Posted Thursday, June 28, 2012 11:49 AM
Comment 1 by Nick at 28-Jun-12 01:19 PM
Congress passes ObamaCare in 2010, Obama signs it, Supreme Court upholds it, yet Congress members exempt themselves from this bill and shove it down people's throats? There's something wrong with this picture!!
Who does this bill benefit?
Answer: Insurance companies and supporters of big government
Comment 2 by eric z at 29-Jun-12 07:51 AM
I cannot disagree with the sentiment that Romneycare, done via a cramdown with all real reform off the table from the get-go, is unsound and a big sop to the insurance industry - especially the individual mandate.
My biggerst bitch about it: It delays the ultimate change to single payer as the entire industrialized world has, but for the US of A.
But it is Romneycare - nothing else, done on a federal stage after proving problematic in Massachusetts, and it was done with reform of pharma pricing [the government using purchasing leverage to get fairer pricing] off the table so that the drug lobbyists would stay quiet while the Romneycare thing was being done to us.
Many hoped the Supremes would kill the Beast; so that it would be back to the drawing board with single payer - single provider as more of an aim in a redo. Not to be. Roberts was loyal to his roots.
Comment 3 by Patrick at 29-Jun-12 08:03 AM
Eric
I must ask you this question. Do you value freedom of choice? Yes or no please no spin, no extra words.
Thanks.
Comment 4 by eric z at 29-Jun-12 08:08 AM
It's a tax. Roberts says so, and anything can be justified on that basis, yes/no?
Do your web search = Beatles Taxman
But ---- IT IS ROMNEYCARE.
Like that. Love it. ROMNEYCARE.
..................
Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman
If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.
Don't ask me what I want it for
If you don't want to pay some more
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
....................
The only sane answer to reach cost control without allowing a stranglehold on availability is clear. Cut through all the bullshit and go to single payer - single provider as the best cost-benefit balance feasible in managing the runaway costs in that industrial segment.
The VA controls its costs. It uses leverage with Big Pharma. Etc. There is that precedent - in existence as a US of A on the ground proof of concept.
Deny it if you choose, but it is there, along with Europe and Canada. It is real. It is effective. So who is against it? Employers wanting to hold employees by a pair of vital organs? Change jobs and bump into pre-existing condition exclusions. What? Who else, besides that and Big Pharma, the HMO profit machines, those with a vested interest in the status quo. The lobbyists and those in Congress already bought and owned. Idiots subject to being propagandized. Romney and Obama both offering a Tweedle Dee - Tweedle Dum band-aid where major surgery is called for to fix the cancer.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 29-Jun-12 09:16 AM
I'm for getting the clutter out of the health insurance industry. In my world, though, that mean giving the decisionmaking to We the People & our physicians. It means eliminating the federal & state governments from the insurance industry as much as possible.
Response 4.2 by Gary Gross at 29-Jun-12 09:32 AM
It's a tax. Roberts says so.That's true, meaning that Sen. Klobuchar, Sen. Franken, Rep. Ellison, Rep. McCollum & Rep. Walz each voted twice for a gigantic regressive tax increase that's putting the squeeze on the middle class. That's the undeniable fact from yesterday's ruling. The DFL can tip-toe around alot of things but there's no arguing that they didn't vote for the annual tax on health insurance policies. They voted to tax tanning sessions. They voted for a 40% excise tax on the Cadillac health insurance plans that many unions have negotiated. They've even started a "new tax on insured and self-insured health plans", most of which are paid by small businesses.
If the DFL is such good friends with unions, how could any of these DFL legislators vote to levy a 40% tax on unions' health insurance plans?
Comment 5 by eric z at 29-Jun-12 08:08 AM
Patrick - yes I am pro-choice.
Comment 6 by eric z at 29-Jun-12 08:09 AM
Patrick - are you pro-choice? A fair turnaround of the question.
