There Is Responsibility Involved In Voting
Jul 8, 2011 Political
Bill Clinton is upset by proposed laws in Florida and New Hampshire. Those laws would not allow people from other states, who happen to be attending college in these two states, to register to vote in the states. The law would require them to vote in their home states.
Clinton likens this to Jim Crow laws. This is nothing more than rhetoric designed to inflame the issue, which really should be a non-issue.
The members of our military who are stationed in a state other than their state of residence are not allowed to register to vote in the states in which they are stationed. They use a little thing called an absentee ballot. They request one, fill it out, and send it in. Then Democrats work really hard to have them discounted.
College kids from all states should be required to do the same thing. This IS the reason we have an absentee ballot process.
What Clinton fails to understand (as do many Democrats) is that voting requires a bit of personal responsibility. Now I know Democrats are not big on personal responsibility (and one only needs to look at Clinton to see that) but it is required nonetheless.
If college students can’t request an absentee ballot, fill it out, and mail it in then they do not need to vote. This is not an undue burden and it certainly does not rise to the level of Jim Crow.
What is it with Democrats and voting? Why do they claim ID requirements will disenfranchise people when the very people they claim will be disenfranchised need IDs to collect from the many government programs from which they benefit?
Why is it some kind of burden for people to fill out an absentee ballot if they will not be home on election day?
This all requires people to be responsible for their vote. If they can’t do that then they do not need to vote.
Hell, will we have to spoon feed them next to ensure they eat properly?
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: bill clinton, college students, jim crow, laws, Military, personal responsibility, voting
Why Didn’t Obama Consult With Congress?
Mar 20, 2011 Political
Barack Obama committed the United States to aggressive action against Libya and our military has launched hundreds of missiles against that country. Most Democrats are publicly supporting Mr. Obama even though these very Democrats were quite vocal in their opposition to George Bush involving us in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The big difference is that George Bush requested and received approval from Congress for the use of military force. Barack Obama did no such thing. Some Democrats believe he ignored his responsibilities when he acted unilaterally and without consulting Congress.
These Democrats are not happy with Mr. Obama and the word impeachment has been thrown around:
Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.
Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses. Politico
While some of these Democrats are upset at the use of force it would appear as if they are equally or more upset that Obama did not consult Congress. They have a valid point and one can only imagine what would have happened had Bush gone into Iraq or Afghanistan without getting the approval of Congress. We would have had Democrats becoming apoplectic over the whole issue and Bush would likely have been impeached.
As it is, Bush was hammered by the left and he received the approval of Congress for the use of military force. Even though he received that approval many wanted to impeach him for using force. Some Democrats appear to want the same but I highly doubt they will be successful.
Obama has too many supporters on the left who will ensure that all is well. He will be protected by the very people who railed against Bush.
The big question that has not been answered is why didn’t Obama discuss this with Congress? I believe that Mr. Obama feels that he in encumbered by Congress (as our Founders intended) and that he would simply rather do things in a way that bypass Congress. This is a pattern we have seen with him as he and his regime look for ways to accomplish an agenda without involving Congress.
He thinks the Constitution is too limiting so he works to avoid doing things in accordance with it.
Obama was worried about having Congress say no to his use of force (he does not have a majority in the House and any Democrat defections would be bad) so he went ahead without involving that body,
Now he will have to face the music.
Or will he?
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: constitution, impeach, laws, libya, lies, Military, Obama
The Saga Of Rahm
Jan 26, 2011 Political
Rahm Emanuel is trying to become the Mayor of Chicago so that he can take the place of the retiring thug who is cashing out. One thug will replace another in the nation’s most corrupt city. There is one sticking point and that is, is Emanuel eligible to run?
There are two interpretations of the statute and though I agree with the interpretation that he had to reside in the city for the year prior, there are others who disagree. The court made a compelling argument for the “you must physically live here” interpretation because it is defined separately from the residency requirements of voters.
The statute allows exceptions but it would appear as if Emanuel does not fit into one of the categories, at least as far as the court is concerned.
I am indifferent because I do not live in Chicago. I think that if the law’s definition of residency means you can be out of the state and still be eligible then Emanuel certainly should be allowed to run. He pays taxes there and he votes there so if this is the intent of the law then he has every right to run.
If the meaning of the law is that he had to actually be living there in order to run then he should not be allowed to. It appears as if this was the intent since the rules for voting and the rules for running are spelled out separately and it appears as if the words “reside in” mean that he had to be living there. This is different than having residency.
Many military members maintain their state residency when away serving but they are not residing in the state. States want you to remain a resident so they can tax you while you are away. Be that as it may, there is a difference between residency status and residing in. If you travel overseas you are still a citizen (resident) of the US but you are not residing in the US.
And I think that is the interpretation that the court applied because those terms appear to be spelled out that way.
However, this will ultimately be settled by the courts and if they decide that Emanuel meets the residing in definition then he should be allowed to run.
Of course, this is Chicago and it is likely that Emanuel will be allowed to run even if there is a hundred pages of notes attached to the law saying that he had to actually live there.
As I said, I have no dog in this race. Even though I don’t care for the guy I think that if he meets the criteria then he should be allowed to run.
I also think if they decide he does not then he should not be allowed to run.
And that means he does not get special favors because he is Obama’s buddy or because the people like him.
Then again, who am I kidding. This is Chicago…
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: chicago, corruption, laws, mayor, rahm emanuel
Right to Travel?
Nov 19, 2010 Political
So, a simple question — do we, as American citizens, have a right to travel in an airplane? According to the TSA, no. According to Joe Biden, Vice President of the United States, no. According to the head of Homeland Stupidity Security, no. According to US law, yes!
A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace.
— US Code Title 49, Subtitle VII, Part A, subpart i, Chapter 401, Section 40103.
Huh. Oh, I guess laws only apply when and where the law enforcement people want them to. And only to people who are not part of the government elite.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
I Was Profiled In Arizona
Aug 8, 2010 Political
I am in Arizona to attend a conference (no boycott here) and something quite troubling happened to me. I was asked for my identification. In fact, I was asked for my ID several times within the first hour of being in the state. I was asked for identification when I picked up my rental car and then I was asked for my identification when I checked into the hotel. Fortunately for me I had identification that meets the Arizona requirement to assume I am here legally. I am, of course, an American citizen and would not have been insulted if I had no ID and they checked my immigration status.
It is quite obvious that I do not meet the demographic of an illegal in this part of our country but we cannot single out people based on what they look like because that would be profiling and even though profiling is an important part of police work, it is not allowed unless the government wants to go after conservatives. Then it is OK for them to put out reports that profile certain groups of people and decide that they might be domstic terrorists based on the profile.
That is the only time it is allowed. Nearly all acts of terrorism over the last 20 years or so have been committed by Middle Eastern men between the ages of 18 and 45. Armed with that handy bit of information our government refuses to give closer scrutiny to that group so as not to offend the people most likely to commit terror. Instead the government would rather harass little old ladies. As far as I know, little old ladies have never been involved in terrorist acts here in the US.
I had no problem showing my ID in Arizona. The truth is I am asked for my ID thousands of times a year. I was asked for my ID by TSA today before I was allowed to board the aircraft. If I did not have ID they could have denied me entry or detained me. I am asked for my ID when I travel, cash a check, use a credit card, when I got my license, when I took my nursing license exam and my specialty certification exam, my EMT exam, and I was asked to show my ID when I applied for (and when I renewed) my passport. I was even asked for ID when I opened a bank account and the information collected was shared with DHS. If I did not do things right I would have suffered the consequences. Illegals, on the other hand are not suffering enough yet because they keep coming here.
Those are perfectly OK in the eyes of our government and if I did not have ID the government would be OK with anything negative that happened as a result of not having the ID. Arizona asked me for ID and I would have been refused my car and my hotel room without it.
But ask certain other groups for ID and then have consequences for anyone who does not have it and all hell breaks loose.
Only in the backwards world of progressives can the government side with illegals and another country against a state for actually upholding the law and at the same time ignore sanctuary cities who by definition break the law and encourage others to do so.
How does the left justify this?
As for you Arizona, I was happy to provide my ID and did not consider it profiling, racial or otherwise. I considered it following the rules…
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]