Sep 10, 2012 Political
Today the Democrat party in the state of Maryland reported that its candidate for US Representative in the 1st Congressional District would be withdrawing from the race against freshman Congressman Andy Harris. The reason given is that Wendy Rosen was registered to vote in the state of Maryland AND the state of Florida. Not only was she registered in both states, she voted in both states in the same election.
The Democrats reported it because they are concerned, or so they say, with voter laws and the sanctity of the vote. I think they probably discovered this, figured if they did the Republicans had and would wait until after anyone else could be selected to replace her and then release it. Since the Democrats released the information and Rosen has withdrawn she can now be replaced.
Lost in all this is the admission by Democrats that voter fraud takes place. Let’s face it, there is no way this was a mistake. This woman had to know what she was doing. If by some remote chance she was unable to recall voting in one state while voting in another than she was not capable of holding office anyway.
No, the only explanation is that she intended to commit fraud (and the Democrats turned the evidence over to the appropriate authorities though in Maryland she will likely get an award) and voted in both states on purpose. By exposing this crime the Democrats have admitted to all of us that voter fraud takes place and in this case involved one of their candidates (I wonder how many more they have doing this).
We need a way for states to check to see if anyone is registered in another state and we need laws requiring an ID. While Democrats fight every state that enacts laws designed to make fraud tougher one of their own is caught red handed, though long after the fact.
They need to make an example of this woman to send a message to others.
And we need tougher laws to ensure this does not happen.
Never surrender, never submit.
Sep 4, 2012 Political
This has been the rallying cry among the left and its surrogates who oppose any kind of law that requires an ID to vote. Voting is one of the most important civil exercises in which people participate and it is important to ensure only those who are entitled to vote do so. This is not acceptable to the liberal left and the reason is simple. Yes, the left claims that the ID requirement is racist and affects minorities and poor people but the reality is the left opposes ID laws because those laws make it more difficult for people to cheat.
Democrats have a long history of ballot box stuffing, suddenly finding enough ballots to push a Democrat over the edge and allowing the illegal aliens as well as the dead to vote. These are undeniable truths and this is why liberals oppose voter ID laws.
The unions are heavily involved in Democrat vote cheating schemes and the union bosses oppose voter ID requirements. This is ironic because unions require an ID before anyone can vote in union elections. That’s right, whenever unions have a vote on an issue the people who want to vote MUST show an ID.
It is important to unions that people who are not supposed to vote on an issue are kept from doing so. Strangely, unions do not feel the same way when it comes to the integrity of the election process in this country.
The Democrats oppose voter ID BUT the Democrats require a government issued ID be presented to attend the Democrat National Convention. Yep, if you want to attend that event you will have to present a valid ID. Obviously the Democrats want to preserve the sanctity of their convention but have little regard for the integrity of the elections in the country.
Democrats have called the voter ID schemes racist and have made bizarre claims that people will not be able to get IDs and those people will be the poor and minorities who tend to vote Democrat.
The people attending the Democrat Convention tend to vote Democrat and must show an ID to attend. This begs the question; are Democrats racist and are they trying to disenfranchise and exclude minorities and poor people?
One must show an ID to enter a government building, get on a plane, buy alcohol or tobacco, register for school, join the military, register for sports, cast union votes and enter the Democrat Convention but an ID to vote in an election is somehow a burden.
The reason voter ID is opposed is clear. Democrats cheat and they do not want barriers to their illegal voting schemes erected.
The time to reform is now. States need to pass laws requiring an ID to vote and states need to tell the federal courts that they do not intend to follow any ruling that removes a voter ID requirement. States need to reassert their power over the federal government and we the people need to show them who their bosses are.
We are in charge and they work for us.
We need to dictate the rules and they need to mind their own business.
Remember, requiring an ID is like raping someone…
Never surrender, never submit.
Mar 16, 2012 Political
This video demonstrates the lunacy of claiming voter ID laws keep the poor from voting. It also clearly shows why Democrats oppose such laws. Remember, the lie about the poor (or minorities) not having IDs is the red herring. The real reason is to keep Democrats in power by allowing those who are not allowed to vote to do so. The state has no problem asking for ID for many other things.
In this video we see people going to the polls and using the names of dead people. They are allowed to vote and are told they do not need ID even though many of them ask if they should show one. The people never voted. They said they wanted to go get their IDs and left probably to avoid breaking the law. Democrats love dead voters. And they are not the only ones. One could use the name of any registered voter and vote in that person’s name as demonstrated.
Then the video has the same people trying to buy an alcoholic beverage and being asked for ID. They go into great lengths to express they are too poor to afford an ID and don’t have one and that the poor are being discriminated against with regard to alcohol purchases.
Another portion shows the same person trying to get a hotel room without an ID. The same rant is used but the person is denied.
In this video the people are told they need an ID to get an alcoholic beverage or a hotel room and they are denied because they lack an ID.
In neither case are they breaking the law.
But, when they go to vote they are told they do not need an ID and then proceed to demonstrate how easy it would be to break the law and cast illegal votes.
This is why we need voter ID. And the poor (and minorities) can get IDs. How else do they get hotel rooms or booze (or tobacco products)? Tobacco and alcohol use is higher among the poor (and minorities). How is that so if they don’t have IDs?
Never surrender, never submit.
Mar 12, 2012 Political
Imagine you belong to a union and that union is voting on something (contract, leadership, etc). You arrive at the union hall which belongs to the union and its members. Before you are allowed to vote you must show an ID. Why? What are the odds that the people in the room are not part of the union? Could they really get so many non union folks in there to affect the outcome of the vote without someone noticing they don’t belong? If there is any place where the likelihood of voter fraud is low it is in a union hall (with regard to non members voting, all kinds of fraud takes place in unions) so why is an ID required?
Better yet, why do the same unions that require an ID to vote in its processes oppose voter ID laws with regard to our state political elections?
The unions oppose voter ID when the general population is voting in political elections even though the potential (and actual) fraud is much higher than could ever be expected in a union hall where ID is required.
The reason is pretty simple. The unions do not want voter ID laws because those laws would keep the unions from committing voter fraud. The unions are heavily vested in the Democrat Party and the unions do a lot of fraudulent things. They intimidate people who are campaigning, they intimidate people who vote, and they help the dead get to the polls while also ensuring there are an adequate number of “extra” votes for the people they want to win.
Democrats and unions are one in the same. The same philosophy, same criminal activity, and same voter fraud (ACORN anyone) found in unions are found in the Democrat Party. They work hand in hand because unions work to get Democrats elected and then Democrats work to transfer taxpayer money to the unions. The violation of law leading to investors being shafted while unions took ownership of auto companies was a payoff and this kind of stuff happens all the time.
Since Democrats and unions are the same it should come as no surprise that Democrats oppose voter ID. Eric “The Red” Holder and his Justice Department just put the nix on a Texas voter ID law because of the phony claim that it might disproportionately affect Hispanics. Evidently, all those Hispanics in Texas who have jobs do not have ID. Evidently, all the Hispanics in Texas who receive welfare or drive a car do not have a valid ID. I can’t imagine how so many people could be affected by this law but evidently in Texas they let people work, drive, or receive welfare without an ID.
Let me tell you the real concern of Holder and the Obama regime. They are worried that a voter ID law would keep illegals from voting in elections and those would be lost Democrat votes. Illegals are not allowed to vote and ID laws would prevent more of them from doing so and this is a non starter for the Obama regime. The regime needs the illegals and all the other votes it can get in Texas because it is a very red state that contains a lot of electoral votes.
I know Texas is under special scrutiny because of past discrimination as are a few other states. It always seemed arbitrary to me because there are states not subject to the scrutiny and they were as discriminatory as any on the list.
Be that as it may, the argument that the law is discriminatory to Hispanics does not hold water. The Supreme Court has already ruled that a similar law in another state is Constitutional.
But Holder has pressed on with his crusade against voter ID.
He knows that those laws will likely be upheld by the SCOTUS (because they already have) but the legal process takes time.
And Holder only needs to delay until after this November.
If we are lucky, he will be in jail by then…
Never surrender, never submit.
Jan 16, 2012 Political
It is no secret that Barack Obama has little regard for the Constitution. He thinks it puts up to many barriers to redistributive change (taking from one to give to another). He believes that there should not only be a level playing field (everyone has the same chance) but that outcomes should be equal. This is one of the things Socialists like and they particularly like the part where they live like kings while the rest of the population lives in poverty.
So there is little regard for the Constitution, no surprise there. Democrats do not like the thing because it makes it harder for them to run roughshod over us.
Eric Holder, the lawless Attorney General, made a speech today discussing voting rights. He was with the head of the NAACP in South Carolina where the US has blocked voter laws. Yes, the US has blocked ID laws because Democrats think it will discriminate against voters (OK, they think Democrat voters or they would not care). They might have a point, illegals are voting in our elections. This is the Democrat voting base so yes, laws would discriminate against them but not in a bad way. They are not allowed to vote.
This is what laws are for and this is one of the reasons states are getting tougher. They are doing it because the system is broken and is wide open for fraud despite what the morons in DC say. The regime knows that it is in deep stuff and that it needs every vote it can get, legal or otherwise, in order to win. Voter laws that improve the integrity of the system are a barrier that the regime does not like. Then again, integrity is not a strong point of these people (and by these people I mean Democrats).
To Democrats the Constitution is a document of convenience. If it suits their purpose they will use it and if it does not they will ignore it.
Eric Holder does not even know the thing. He filed suit in a federal court to block Arizona’s immigration law but the Constitution clearly states that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction when any state is a party.
Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction…
From an article in Canada Free Press. Bold as appears in the article.
This regime is lawless and will do whatever it can get away with in order to push its agenda of making America a Socialist nation. Many Americans are too blind or too deluded to see this but those who lived under an oppressive government can see what is going on. Russian immigrants are not thrilled with Democrats and are flocking to the GOP.
The states need to push back against the tyranny of the federal government. States need to enact whatever voting laws they desire and take the feds to court if they interfere. Arizona needs to continue with its immigration laws and ignore the court that decided against the state because that court and its judge had no Constitutional authority to act.
It is time for the states to take control and to put the federal government and the Obama regime in their place.
Never surrender, never submit.