Voter ID Does NOT Equal Disenfranchisement

I saw this discussion going on here at SUFA during the day yesterday and decided I would wade into these waters with my own thoughts. I won’t spend hours writing, but I will simply offer up what I think and allow the debate to grow from there. There were some who claimed that voter fraud wasn’t as rampant as reported. I am unable to prove that claim right or wrong, although I think that it is clear that there are cases of voter fraud out there. Do they have a significant impact? I think that they can. I also think that in certain races and certain voting precincts that there have been those who fully exploited the system to create a big enough impact. But I will focus only on the concept that has been put forth, primarily by the Democrat party, that to require ID at the voting booth disenfranchises the poor. I find this to be an utterly ridiculous claim. And here is why…

Let’s start with the claim. According to pundits on the left, somewhere between 10% and 15% of voting age Americans do not have a valid form of government issued ID with which to prove their identity at the polls. Take this excerpt from a NY Times article:

Of course the Republicans passing these laws never acknowledge their real purpose, which is to turn away from the polls people who are more likely to vote Democratic, particularly the young, the poor, the elderly and minorities…

There is almost no voting fraud in America. And none of the lawmakers who claim there is have ever been able to document any but the most isolated cases. The only reason Republicans are passing these laws is to give themselves a political edge by suppressing Democratic votes.

The most widespread hurdle has been the demand for photo identification at the polls, a departure from the longstanding practice of using voters’ signatures or household identification like a utility bill. Seven states this year have passed laws requiring strict photo ID to vote, and similar measures were introduced in 27 other states. More than 21 million citizens — 11 percent of the population — do not have government ID cards. Many of them are poor, or elderly, or black and Hispanic and could have a hard time navigating the bureaucracy to get a card.

So where did that number come from? Nearly every single article I can find that lists a source links back to a survey from the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. In other words, nearly every single person citing such statistics is operating on info released from a very heavily left leaning source. If we are going to base the claims all on one study, I thought it pertinent to look a little closer to what the survey entailed, because they would have you believe the survey simply asked “do you have an ID?” But that is not what they asked. Here is what they asked in their poll of 2000 people:

1) Do you have a current, unexpired government-issued ID with your picture on it, like a driver’s license or a military ID?

2) If yes, does this photo ID have both your current address AND your current name (as opposed to a maiden name) on it?

3) Do you have any of the following citizenship documents (U.S. birth certificate/U.S. passport/U.S. naturalization papers) in a place where you can quickly find it if you had to show it tomorrow?

4) If yes, does [that document] have your current name on it (as opposed to a maiden name)?

States With or Considering Voter ID Laws

So think about what is being asked. Think about how many people have an ID that would work just fine, but they still had to answer “no” when put under the strict questioning above. For example, I for many years (as a member of the US Army) had a Driver’s License with a picture of me at 16, with my hometown address, and that had expired 3 weeks after I entered the military. I didn’t renew my license until ten years later when I exited the military, because we were not required to do so as long as we were on active duty. After that, my driver’s license has often had the wrong address on it, because working in my last company I moved around A LOT. Mrs. Weapon went three years with her maiden name on her driver’s license after we were married.

Additionally, Mrs. Weapon didn’t renew her passport to her married name until 6.5 years after we were married. Regardless of any of that, ask her if she could find her passport on one day’s notice, and her honest answer would be no. It’s here somewhere, we go on the search each time we realize we will have to use it to leave the country on a trip.

In short, both Mrs. Weapon and myself would have been counted as part of the 10% (that was the actual number from the survey, not 11-15) that do not have ID. Yet we have both voted in every election and under every single proposed voter ID law in the country, we would still be able to vote by providing a utility bill to verify address, a marriage certificate to verify maiden name change, or a passport if we were given more than a day or two notice of when election day will be (since these are widely known, why was this kink thrown into Brennan’s survey, I wonder).

So what does this show us? It shows us that the survey questions were written in a way that causes a drastic inflation of the percentage of voting age Americans who do not have ID. I will leave it up to you to decide whether this was an intentional effort to bolster liberal arguments or whether the folks at NYU are just inept in producing valid data. Regardless of which it is, the fact remains that the data is flawed.

And the conclusions derived from that data are even more flawed. This is from yet another NY Times piece:

Republicans have been pushing these changes for years, but now more than two-thirds of the states have adopted or are considering such laws. The Advancement Project, an advocacy group of civil rights lawyers, correctly describes the push as “the largest legislative effort to scale back voting rights in a century.”

Anyone who has stood on the long lines at a motor vehicle office knows that it isn’t easy to get such documents. For working people, it could mean giving up a day’s wages.

A survey by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law found that 11 percent of citizens, 21 million people, do not have a current photo ID. That fraction increases to 15 percent of low-income voting-age citizens, 18 percent of young eligible voters and 25 percent of black eligible voters. Those demographic groups tend to vote Democratic, and Republicans are imposing requirements that they know many will be unable to meet.

My favorite part of this was: Anyone who has stood on the long lines at a motor vehicle office knows that it isn’t easy to get such documents. For working people, it could mean giving up a day’s wages. I guess it is OK for the (according to the Brennan numbers) other 90% of the voting public to do, but asking that remaining group to do this is not practical. What a ridiculous statement to make. But I digress…

How do we know that these types of conclusions are flawed? Because they fly in the face of all the other claims made by the same groups. You see, these same folks who claim we will be disenfranchising these voters regular fall on the side of providing more government aid as well. According to their claims, blacks are disproportionately poor, the poor (of any race) are only surviving because of all the government assistance. But what do we know about these wonderful programs of government assistance that overwhelmingly help minorities and the poor?

We know that these programs require ID in order to qualify:

  • You need ID to get welfare.
  • You need ID to get unemployment.
  • You need ID to get food stamps.
  • You need ID to qualify for government assisted housing.
  • You need ID for Medicare
  • You need ID for Social Security
  • You need ID to cash a check (including a welfare check)

I think you get the point. All of these programs designed to help those same poor potential voters require that you have a government issued ID in order to use them. And why is it that those programs need an ID? To eliminate fraud, of course. Makes perfect sense to me. Yet the claim is that those same people using ID to access these programs, don’t have ID in order to vote. Further, I don”t hear the left clamoring about that requiring an ID to qualify for welfare is an undue burden on the poor who require it. After all, if they want the assistance, they will get the ID.

Well if they want to vote, they will get the ID (or use the one that they are using for government programs).

Voter ID is not some vast conspiracy by the right to take away the voting rights of millions of poor or minority voters. It is the common sense step to take when we are seeing so many instances of voter fraud (whether you deem them “significant” or not). The only reason to oppose Voter ID is because you wish the fraud to continue, as disenfranchisement is a made up rallying cry using the most effective unprovable claim in modern politics (racism and discrimination).

Further, the concept of Voter ID has been upheld by the Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision in 2008, authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, that upheld the constitutionality of Indiana’s tough ID requirement. Voter ID is constitutional, it is easy to accomplish, it is necessary, and there isn’t really a valid argument against it that I can see. But I will wait to see what the rest of you have to say…


  1. USWeapon says:

    BTW @Buck

    I saw your comments about O’Keefe and that you felt he should be prosecuted. I disagree only because of the way the questions were framed and what was actually said. The scenario was actually really well planned to ensure that they did not do certain things. Here is the transcript of what was said:

    Man: “Do you have an Eric Holder, 50th Street?
    Poll worker: “Let me see here.”
    Man: Xxxx 50th Street.
    Poll Worker: Let’s see, Holder, Hol-t-e-r, or Hold-d-e-r?
    Man: H-o-l-d-e-r.
    Poll Worker: D-e-r. Okay.
    Man: That’s the name.
    Poll Worker: I do. Xxxx 50th Street NW. Okay. [Puts check next to name, indicating someone has shown up to vote.] Will you sign there . . .
    Man: I actually forgot my ID.
    Poll Worker: You don’t need it; it’s all right.
    Man: I left it in the car.
    Poll Worker: As long as you’re in here, and you’re on our list and that’s who you say you are, we’re okay.
    Man: I would feel more comfortable if I go get my ID, is it all right if I go get it?
    Poll Worker: Sure, go ahead.
    Man: I’ll be back faster than you can say furious!
    Poll Worker: We’re not going anywhere.

    Notice that he did not at any point identify himself as Holder or ask for a ballot. Very carefully planned. But I don’t think that there is any crime in asking if they have a Holder at that address. The worker assumed he was Holder, but he never identified himself as such. No laws broken here that I can see.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Given that transcript I’ll agree that this would not make the best case to bring forward. I believe there is still some gray area based on the text of the statute, but you are probably correct that he worded his statements and questions very carefully to get around the law.

      But while his little stunt may show that it is or can be relatively easy to commit fraud in a given precinct, it doesn’t show that voter fraud is rampant. All it shows is that it is possible.

      Apply this to your door lock analogy below (common sense means of reducing burglary) — I can take you to a neighborhood where no one locks their doors, but that doesn’t prove burglaries are actually occurring in that neighborhood. Should there be a law mandating people lock their doors to stop the potential for an easier burglary?

      • USWeapon says:

        I agree that it does no more than show that voter fraud is possible. That should be enough. Fraud being possible is enough to have laws or regulations in place in nearly every other aspect of our lives requiring positive ID. Why not voting, which has such a large impact on us all?

        You are correct that the neighborhood where no one locks their doors doesn’t not prove that burglaries are actually occurring. However, I do believe that locking your doors DOES, in fact, reduce crime as it makes it harder to commit. I would not advocate passing a law to require door locking, because your decision to lock or not does not affect me. You are free to leave your property open to theft if you prefer or if you believe it won’t happen.

        Voting, on the other hand, dramatically affects me.

  2. LOI posted some information on the “irregularities” in WI and MN during recent elections. I also remember the debates about chads and dimples and people’s “intent” during the 2K vote in FL. I think as a nation we have become very sloppy. I remember very clearly being taught in school how to vote properly. Now admittedly this was a few decades back and for someone that is only “39”, it was the good ole days better known as the dark ages. We were taught that any mark outside of the boxes would invalidate the ballot. If we spoiled a ballot we were to ask for a clean one. Now this was a small Midwestern farm town that still used the old fashion paper ballots as opposed to the “machines” in not so far away Chicago. I remember the 1960 election when all those little towns with hand counted ballots beat the machine count from Cook County. But those are the ghosts votes of elections past. Nothing to learn from this move along.

    When I first registered to vote, I was issued a voter ID card. If you moved and reregistered, you turned in the card and it was mailed back to your old voting local to remove your name from the rolls. Why were these card eliminated? I kept mine next to my SSS card. (For the younguns, that’s a draft card.)

    The 2K election triggered a push to computerized voting. I have always questioned the need for this. Computers have a finite lifetime (~5yrs) are expensive, and do require certain skills to set up and maintain. These sophisticated machines are used at most 3 times a year to automate the process. In my small company we still do annual inventories by hand because the cost of automation is not justified. Most poll works are retired folks or youngsters just learning. The former are mostly baffled by the technology, the latter do not listen to instructions because they know it all. Not only that, the new technology hides critical information in electron charge in some chip inside the machines. The information cannot be seen or inspected by human eyes. The same goes for the programs loaded onto the machines. There is no way for commoners to inspect and verify the accuracy of these sophisticated software programs and the machines that run them. Initially I thought the scantron machines were better, but I now see that they to are not just simple totalizers but include sophisticated software that can be preprogrammed to throw an election. So I am coming to the conclusion that the accuracy of our elections is highly suspect for several reasons, just plain cheating, voter ID fraud, sloppiness, inconsistently applied rules, faulty hardware, ….

    When I lived in MA, we marked our paper ballots with an X, folded in half lengthwise, and placed them between 2 wooden rollers in a locked box that were turned by a old man that looked like he served under Gen. Washington. It was a very satisfying process. I like tradition.

    • There is some debate that going to computers or more complex means of voting actually makes it easier for those in power to cheat. The guardians are guarding themselves….

      • @LOI

        Just to clarify. While I do not doubt for a second that these types of things can be done and are being done, these examples do not support the Voter ID position. All the Voter ID laws in the world won’t stop programs such as this from altering the results cast by valid registered voters.

  3. Voter suppression is one of the few ways left to a faltering Right Wing to even hope to maintain a grasp on power.It is currently estimated that Voter ID laws will cost as many as 5 million people their ability to cast a vote. With voter ID laws and redistricting, Conservatism takes another two- step toward permanent power and their ambitions to replace the Democratic Republilc with a Theocratic vision under control of Dominionists. All the propaganda in the world and all the Right Wing spin will never change the facts about what Conservatism’s agenda is about and America is getting wise to the BS.

    By the way…of the more than 300 millions of votes cast in the last few elections, there have been only around three hundred cases of so-called voter fraud in all the states combined. The voter ID laws are designed to address a problem that does not exist and are no more or less than desperate measures by desperate people to insure the winning of elections.

    • USWeapon says:

      Sounds like more political talking points and very little in the way of anything resembling actual discussion around the article itself. Care to take another stab at this, with some actual documented facts and a real discussion? Or are you content with partisan rhetoric that is backed up by… nothing.

      I have to give it to you. “ambitions to replace the Democratic Republilc with a Theocratic vision under control of Dominionists,” sure is a novel twist to general conservative ideals. I suppose next you can make the claim that while writing this article I was secretly hiding my agenda to have the church take over power and force christianity and its principles on the heathens from the Democrat side of the aisle…

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Now, now USW, play nice. He did give you the fact that of the millions of votes cast in the last few elections there have only been a few hundred cases of voter fraud. By the way, from my research on the subject, a good number of those few hundred cases of voter fraud were innocent mistakes and not actual cases of intent to commit voter fraud.

        Also, americanliberaltimes does make a good point in raising the concern over redistricting and gerrymandering. Where do you come down on this issue?

        • USWeapon says:


          I dispute the claim that there have only been a few hundred cases of voter fraud. Just in the few comments I read in discussion here yesterday, there were far higher numbers than that. Heck, his “roughly 300” number doesn’t even touch the ONE instance where it was pointed out that there were so many more votes cast in one district than there were registered voters. That 300 number is ridiculous, and may work in a circle of liberals all telling each other how great their arguments are, but doesn’t begin to stand in the real world.

          As for gerrymandering and re-districting, I have written about it in the past. I oppose it universally. It is nothing more than political machines doing whatever they can to manipulate the system to gain an advantage for their side. I would be all for eliminating all districts as they stand and cutting equal grids in every area, no matter how that alters the landscape. But I have to belly laugh at the notion that this is a “conservative” tactic to take control. I submit that it is a tactic more often employed by those on the liberal side. But regardless it occurs on both sides and should be stopped.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Oh, I’ve never argued that it is only a conservative tactic (though I will dispute your allegation that “it is a tactic more often employed by those on the liberal side”). And I do agree that regardless of party it should be stopped. I would go further and submit that gerrymandering is much more dangerous to our election process than any cases of voter fraud.

            I don’t know how many cases of voter fraud have actually been documented, though I have seen many many studies that point to “very few” or “almost nonexistent” or “statistically insignificant”. You get the drift. Now I’m not saying we should ignore those cases — they should all be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But I do believe the numbers are being overly inflated by those on the right to make the case for the ‘need’ for voter ID laws.

            • USWeapon says:

              But I do believe the numbers are being overly inflated by those on the right to make the case for the ‘need’ for voter ID laws.

              I can agree with this. But I do so with the caveat that it is the same on the other side, in which disenfranchisement numbers are being drastically overly inflated to make the case against voter ID laws.

              • Question-how did gerrymongering start? I was under the impression that it was started to give minorities more of a voice in elections?

            • statistically insignificant

              From what I have been reading, the number is 3% of 130 million. That’s somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 million..not so insignificant if you ask me.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                One study of a 10-yr period of voter fraud in Texas found 100 prosecutions/guilty pleas. 100 cases over 10-yrs. This in a state with a population of over 25 million. I would say that qualifies for ‘statistically insignificant’.

                Though I do agree with USW that the number is being overly downplayed on the left. The left doesn’t need to resort to “300 cases” as the actual number is still almost nonexistent.

              • USWeapon says:

                On the flip side of that, Buck, would be that there have already been 113 convictions for voter fraud in Minnesota just for the 2008 election. In elections where Senators are winning by a few hundred votes (Franken in MN in the 2008 race), and one Senator can be the difference in legislation (see Health Care law), I would classify this as statistically significant.


                There is no getting around it Buck. There are way too many examples of “possible” voter fraud. I don’t see how you can argue otherwise. Don’t these examples concern you? Prosecuted or not..the examples are not hard to find. It’s a big deal when, especially now, when the country is so equally divided..a million votes in either direction can sway the election. Why are these cases not prosecuted? I’ve read some reasons..but I’d like to hear your explanation.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Anita, courtesy of the Brennan Center:


              • Touche

                Waaaaay to many examples..even if half are not’s still too many

        • Good morning, counselor….you are in my ball park now for I am very into Texas politics and the gerrymandering. It is a well known fact and well known issue that the party in power in each state…….sets districting lines and they set them according to voter issues. This is a party issue based on census and nothing more…at least in Texas. When the Democrats held the majority, gerrymandering was paramount…..when the republicans took it….the same. I see district lines in Dallas, for instance….redrawn all the time to ensure re-election and THAT is voter fraud right there. IMO. But it is done on all sides. We have the issue right now in Texas where a Liberal San Antonio Judge has tried to throw out the method of redistricting under the guise of minority impact. Personally, I am tired of hearing all this minority clap trap and it is a time worn excuse for crying foul…..when the ball does not bounce their way.

          I do not know the answer except one way to conquer gerrymandering. Go county by county. I will use Tarrant County for example. If the population of Tarrant county is “X”……then that allows so many representatives what ever….state and Federal. You must live within the county and you MUST be a citizen in good standing. Good standing means no tax issues, no felony arrests, no criminal background. ANYBODY that fits that description can run to be a representative. Do not divide things up according to race or ethnicity. Age is no factor, If the population of Tarrant County supports (pulling no, out of air here) say 25 representatives….then there are 25 electable reps. I should be able to run for office in South Fort Worth even if I live in West Fort Worth. I think this precint crap creates more problems than fix it. Let everybody run on their merits….black/white/Hispanic/Asian…..whatever….and have no party affiliation. Do not divide ballots up by Republican or Democrat to eliminate straight ticket voting.

          As to voter fraud, the Fort Worth/Dallas area stopped over 512 illegal names just last year in local issues. This may not sound like a lot to you but in areas where 10 votes can sway an election….it is tremendous. And this was just the Fort Worth Dallas area….not Houston and not San Antonio where I heard it was more. It is easy to find out the number of ballots caught… is public record. AND, as you know, you cannot take the number of names submitted that were dead people or double voting and compare that to the population to get a statistic… better compare it to the number of votes cast to get the real number. Texas is going to do it….we do not care what Holder says. And, I cannot confirm this since it is what you term heresay…..I have heard that Texas will sit back and watch the Justice Department try to invalidate voting as a result. This will prove interesting.

          Voter ID does not disenfranchise anyone. I have done my research into the 50 states, including New Jersy and New York…..the elderly ARE required to provide picture ID for all of the government goodies. So, the elderly are not disenfranchised. Texas like 31 other states give FREE p[icture ID’s with valid proof of citizenship. Bring a friggin birth certificate which is also free……BUT….you know where I fall on this……voter ID should be required and to get it……bring your birth certificate or your proof of citizenship.

    • “Voter suppression is one of the few ways left to a faltering Right Wing to even hope to maintain a grasp on power.”
      But the LEFT wing Democrats control the White House and Senate. The had control over congress until the 2010 election. The backlash caused by the liberals overreach has them fearing a gian waking, an informed public.

      “It is currently estimated that Voter ID laws will cost as many as 5 million people their ability to cast a vote.”

      In 2008, only 57% of American bothered to vote. How many are estimated to not vote due to boredom or indifference? How many of your supposed five million are just too lazy to vote? Even when you send your ACORN buses or to pick them up, they still no-show you at a staggering rate.

      ” With voter ID laws and redistricting, Conservatism takes another two- step toward permanent power and their ambitions to replace the Democratic Republilc with a Theocratic vision under control of Dominionists. All the propaganda in the world and all the Right Wing spin will never change the facts about what Conservatism’s agenda is about and America is getting wise to the BS.”

      Wow, sounds a lot like what Rush says about you guys…..

      “By the way…of the more than 300 millions of votes cast in the last few elections, there have been only around three hundred cases of so-called voter fraud in all the states combined.”

      Oh bulldookey, John Lott showed more than that in Wisconsin alone. But it was allowed fraud, certified by their “election commission” and Supreme Court.

    • Huh???

  4. USW, I did not respond drectly to your article. I think you are correct. Those that wish to block voter ID do so because, they know there is fraud, they accept the fraud, they want the fraud. If voting is considered one of the most sacred rights we have as citizens of this republic, then it should be protected from fraud by all reasonable means.

    • USWeapon says:

      If voting is considered one of the most sacred rights we have as citizens of this republic, then it should be protected from fraud by all reasonable means.

      That seems to be a big “IF” these days. While I haven’t yet gone to the dark side of thinking voting is useless, I certainly believe in today’s climate it is far less useful. We are generally given the choice between two candidates who both adhere to the idea of a very large and powerful government controlling an easily manipulated public. It is a sacred right, I don’t necessarily believe that it is still a useful one.

      Given that I don’t see disenfranchisement as a valid argument against Voter ID laws (although I will wait to discuss it with those who oppose here to see if they can sway me), I don’t understand why there is so much struggle against Voter ID. You need a valid ID for so many things in this country. Requiring one to vote seems a no-brainer. If you really fear voter disenfranchisement, then set up a program to legally ensure that government issued IDs are easy to obtain and available to all, regardless of economic status or race.

  5. Buck the Wala says:

    I take exception to the remark that those who are against voter ID laws only do so because they wish the fraud to continue. That is a ridiculous statement to make. Fact is, actual cases of voter fraud are very few and the majority of those cases would not be stopped by voter ID laws as currently written. Add to that the potential for disenfranchisement, which is real (even if admittedly hard to measure to what extent), well I’m sure you get where I’m going with this…

    Going to be in and out with meetings all day, but will try to add more later on.

    • USWeapon says:


      You are correct. That was a ridiculous statement and one that I will retract (and perhaps later remove from the article).

    • Just A Citizen says:


      My personal experience is that those screaming about disenfranchisement are the same ones linked to all kinds of voting fraud. And they are the hard left of the Dem Party.

      We have PROOF of some voter fraud.

      You have ZERO proof of disenfranchisement DUE TO voter ID requirements.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        JAC, I don’t think there can be proof of disenfranchisement due to voter ID. Too many variables to determine. But what can be looked at is the potential for disenfranchisement, coupled with the scant evidence of voter fraud.

        Remember, in this context, we can only look at voter fraud that is being perpetrated by individuals which voter ID laws would stop.

        • Could you please list those variables?

        • Just A Citizen says:


          What you and the Brennan center forget is that Voter ID is just the last step in a process of Identifying the Voter as legit. But without the ID at the end, the first steps become worthless.

          I will grant you this. Voter ID alone will not stop fraud completely. FAKE ID is not a new concept. And those that are willing to cheat are devious people. I know, I have met a few of them.

          Looks like typical “its all relative” thinking to me. Voter Fraud proved. Disenfranchisement NOT proved, and not provable therefore we must use “potential” as the criteria. And of course “potential” is “PROVEN” by whom???????

          Here’s one for you Buck. Is this Voter Fraud???

          DNC group picks up a bunch of vagrants and “reported” students and takes them to the polls to “register” AND “vote”. Thanks to same day registration. On the trip to the polling place they are told they will get a free lunch and pack of Cigs after they are done. These newly registered voters claim the local “court house” as their place of residence. Thanks to Dem Party rule for proof of residency. They then vote.

          After the DNC van takes them out for Pizza. FREE PIZZA.

          Here is another. Is this voter fraud.

          About 150 “mail in ballots” where the signatures did not match those on records…………all “certified” by a Dem Party County Clerk.

          And another, very recent here in Oregon. Several hundred “mail in ballots” sent to the same location. Thanks to Dem Party forcing mail in ballots as needed to prevent disenfranchising voters.

          Voter fraud got John Kennedy elected President. Voter fraud got Barrack Obama on the ballot in Indiana, which allowed him to be elected President. But what the hell, it is ONLY a small number of votes when you consider the total.

          • Buck the Wala says:


            Even forgetting about fake ID, take a look at your examples:

            1) DNC (or RNC) picks up a group, drives them to the voting booth and they vote — how would voter ID laws stop this?
            2) mail in ballots — how would ovter ID laws stop this?

            But let me just say, my main concern is two-fold:
            1) I don’t believe voter ID laws are truly necessary as they aren’t really tailored to stop or prevent voter fraud in the vast majority of instances (as you sort of prove by way of your examples), and
            2) The potential for disenfranchisement voter ID laws can cause.

            That being said, DailyKOS had a diary entry today on voter ID (coincidence?) which I feel would provide a good solution — you want voter ID, fine, but let’s provide free ID to all eligible voters. This would resolve a lot of the arguments as to disenfranchisement and should resolve your concerns with mandating a voter prove who they are.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              I did not claim an ID would stop those, I asked you if YOU think these are examples of Voter Fraud. You claimed Voter Fraud is insignificant. I gave you three examples from my personal experience that all happened within the last 5 years.

              So is this FRAUD or NOT FRAUD?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                JAC, let’s keep the discussion on those instances of voter fraud that voter ID laws are being proposed to address.

                Is it fraud for the DNC or RNC to drive people to the polls and give them a slice of pizza? I don’t know – but it is certainly improper and should not be allowed. What is that quote about the appearance of impropriety?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          “potential for disenfranchisement”

          JAC, I agree with Buck. We should not try and slow down voter fraud because it exists because we might somehow stop a poor minority for voting for their monthly government cookies (maybe, no real facts to back this up, but just in case).

          Until we make being a public servant far less economically desirable, fraud will continue. The deck is already stacked because of the two party system, add fraud and many good Americans have become disenfranchized by the corrupt system. But let’s make sure that we don’t enact laws based on assumptions versus facts. Someone may not be able to afford gas in their Escalade.

        • As mentioned before, however, there is just as high a potential for disenfranchisement by those who think the game is rigged and that a lack of minimal ID requirements only makes it more likely that their vote really will not count. Of course, there is no way to get an accurate number on this either, but if we are talking potential, I would say that either side is equivalent. So the only number of merit is the actual number of people unable to vote versus the actual number of fradulent votes that could have been prevented by an ID.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            It may be semantics, but I’m not sure if a ‘feeling that your vote doesn’t count anyway’ counts as disenfranchisement. Does that make sense?

            • Now that I have looked up the actual definition instead of going on how it is being used, I agree. The closest argument I can make is that actual fraud, be it ID related or not, removes the strength of the vote, thus weakening the vote, thus, technically, removing the vote from the individual.

              However, the real definition also does not apply to those who choose not to get an ID. There are ID options, as well as voting options for those without IDs, that are available to any citizen under any of the proposed ID requirements. Thus, there is no “potential disenfranchisement”, only potential to make people not bother, which is no different than those who “don’t bother” because they think the whole thing is a rigged game or that their vote is meaningless. The only way there would be potential is if someone was actually stopped from voting and/or was unable to get an ID. Do you have any evidence of either of these conditions under any of the proposed voter ID laws?

              • USWeapon says:

                Thus, there is no “potential disenfranchisement”, only potential to make people not bother, which is no different than those who “don’t bother” because they think the whole thing is a rigged game or that their vote is meaningless. The only way there would be potential is if someone was actually stopped from voting and/or was unable to get an ID.

                This is an EXCELLENT point Jon

  6. Bottom Line says:

    Voting is to fool slaves into thinking they have a say.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Disenfranchisement is just another left wing fairy tale to go along with man made global warming. If there was any truth to it, there would be a reasonable reason besides race baiting. While politicians have no credibility, left wing college professors have even less. 👿

      • USWeapon says:

        I don’t know that it is a fairy tale, G. But I do believe that it is greatly exaggerated in order to spin a political agenda. In the same way I believe that some of the voter fraud cases are exaggerated in order to make the case for Voter ID, which isn’t necessary. Voter ID is simply the common sense step to take in order to reduce the ability to commit fraud.

        Kind of like putting locks on doors. It doesn’t eliminate all burglaries, but it at least makes it a little harder to do so.

        Sadly, I actually agree with your statement regarding left wing college professors. But they are, in that way, no different from many of the folks on the right who occupy the talk radio spectrum. Both have an agenda and are will to do anything to promote it.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          USW,, You know my feelings on voting, I think it is useless in theses times, but thats another subject. I do wonder how those on the left can demand everyone have health insurance and claim it is Constitutional, yet cry foul over voter ID, which is Constitutional.

          Our nation has become so divided on so many different fronts, it will be next to impossible to expect anything less than a Civil War in our future. It’s a shame really.

  7. gmanfortruth says:


    FFox News reports Butch Morgan, Pam Brunette, Beverly Shelton and Dustin Blythe were all charged April 2, 2012 as part of a multiple-felony case. Court documents reveal the plan was hatched by local Democratic Party officials inside the local party headquarters and carried out by the officer workers under strict orders to comply!

    our Indiana Democrats are now charged with participating in an election fraud scheme to fake signatures and names – even using REAL names, addresses and birthdays from other petitions – on the 2008 primary petitions used in order to ensure candidate Barack Obama had all of the ‘support’ he needed to meet the state’s so-called ballot eligibility requirements!

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Lucas Burkett, a St. Joseph County Voter Registration Office worker, signed an affidavit affirming that he was part of the plot to force Obama upon the American people, a plan that started in January 2008. Burkett told investigators that it was his job to “forge petitions for candidate Barack Obama,” whereas Beverly Shelton was assigned to forge petitions for candidate Hillary Clinton” and Blythe for candidate John Edwards.

      When Burkett refused to continue the forgeries, the Democratic Party chair ORDERED Blythe to then do the dirty work forging petitions for Barack Hussein Obama. Butch Morgan, the long-time chairman of the St. Joseph County Democratic Party, resigned in disgrace last October when the scandal first made national news.

      Indiana State Police investigators have already identified at least 22 fake petitions that sailed through the Voter Registration Board as legitimate documents. The fake petitions even had the rubber-stamp signature of the board’s Republican supervisor, Linda Silcott, who told investigators that she did not remember either signing the petitions in question or authorizing her rubber stamp to be used.

  8. @ Buck…………One study of a 10-yr period of voter fraud in Texas found 100 prosecutions/guilty pleas. 100 cases over 10-yrs. This in a state with a population of over 25 million. I would say that qualifies for ‘statistically insignificant’.

    This is very flawed and I am familiar with the study you mentioned. BUT….take the 25 million and reduce that to the voting public and then reduce that to the number of votes cast……for example…..if only 15% of the voters turned out….THAT is the nnumber to be used. The Tarrant County League of Women voters has long been recognized as impartial….or as impartial as one gets…….they have great stats.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Fair point Colonel. You are correct – you do need to compare the number to actual votes cast. Do you have those numbers?

      • I can get them sir………I will see what I can do but since I have posted more than my fair share…I have two things to do…Answer Todd from yesterday and get some stats for you. They are available but give me some time, please sir.

        How are you,BTW……..hope things are well up there.

  9. link to around a dozen articles on voter fraud

  10. 2008 Voter Fraud Rampant in Houston:

    When Catherine Engelbrecht and her friends sat down and started talking politics several years ago, they soon agreed that talking wasn’t enough. They wanted to do more. So when the 2008 election came around, “about 50” of her friends volunteered to work at Houston’s polling places.

    “What we saw shocked us,” she said. “There was no one checking IDs, judges would vote for people that asked for help. It was fraud, and we watched like deer in the headlights.”

    Their shared experience, she says, created “True the Vote,” a citizen-based grassroots organization that began collecting publicly available voting data to prove that what they saw in their day at the polls was, indeed, happening — and that it was happening everywhere.

    “The first thing we started to do was look at houses with more than six voters in them” Engelbrecht said, because those houses were the most likely to have fraudulent registrations attached to them. “Most voting districts had 1,800 if they were Republican and 2,400 of these houses if they were Democratic . . .

    “But we came across one with 24,000, and that was where we started looking.”

    It was Houston’s poorest and predominantly black district, which has led some to accuse the group of targeting poor black areas. But Engelbrecht rejects that, saying, “It had nothing to do with politics. It was just the numbers.”

    The task was overwhelming. With 1.9 million voters and 886 voting precincts, Houston’s Harris County is the second largest county in the country — and the key to Texas elections.

    The group called for help and quickly got 30 donated computers and “tens of thousands of hours” of volunteer work. And then the questions started to arise.

    “Vacant lots had several voters registered on them. An eight-bed halfway house had more than 40 voters registered at its address,” Engelbrecht said. “We then decided to look at who was registering the voters.”

    Their work paid off. Two weeks ago the Harris County voter registrar took their work and the findings of his own investigation and handed them over to both the Texas secretary of state’s office and the Harris County district attorney.

    Most of the findings focused on a group called Houston Votes, a voter registration group headed by Sean Caddle, who also worked for the Service Employees International Union before coming to Houston. Among the findings were that only 1,793 of the 25,000 registrations the group submitted appeared to be valid. ( THAT IS ONLY 7.17% VALID….WHICH MEANS 92.83% WERE INVALID).

    The other registrations included one of a woman who registered six times in the same day; registrations of non-citizens; so many applications from one Houston Voters collector in one day that it was deemed to be beyond human capability; and 1,597 registrations that named the same person multiple times, often with different signatures.

    AND THEN, WHEN BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION THIS HAPPENED……….The outcome of the efforts grew in importance the day after Vasquez made his announcement. On the morning of Aug. 27, a three-alarm fire destroyed almost all of Harris County’s voting machines, throwing the upcoming Nov. 2 election into turmoil. While the cause wasn’t determined, the $40 million blaze, according to press reports, means election officials will be focused on creating a whole new voting system in six weeks. Just how they do it will determine how vulnerable the process becomes.

    Read more:

    I do not know about most of you but this points to more than insignificant.

  11. The U.S. Supreme Court agrees. In 2008, the court recognized the threat posed by voter fraud and ruled that Indiana’s photo ID requirement was a legitimate, non-discriminatory means of protecting the integrity of elections. The Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s law despite no concrete evidence of fraud in Indiana’s elections.

    In Texas, evidence of voter fraud abounds. In recent years, my office has secured more than 50 voter fraud convictions. Those include a woman who voted in place of her dead mother, a political operative who cast ballots for two people, and a city counci lmember who registered foreign nationals to vote in an election decided by 19 votes. Voter fraud is hard to detect, so cases like these are just the tip of the iceberg.

    In 2011, Texas enacted a photo-identification requirement modeled after Indiana’s. Our Legislature agreed with the Supreme Court that this requirement is a simple, effective way to prevent fraud. History also shows that voter turnout has increased after voter ID laws were enacted, and because Texas provides voter ID cards free of charge, no Texan’s voting rights will be affected.

    About Editorials/Debate

    Opinions expressed in USA TODAY’s editorials are decided by its Editorial Board, a demographically and ideologically diverse group that is separate from USA TODAY’s news staff.

    Most editorials are accompanied by an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature that allows readers to reach conclusions based on both sides of an argument rather than just the Editorial Board’s point of view.

    The Obama administration’s Department of Justice has now reversed its previous approval of voter ID laws and attempted to block Texas’ law. Attorney General Eric Holder used tortured logic and manipulated statistics to reach the already-rejected conclusion that photo ID requirements are racially discriminatory. The Supreme Court is on record upholding voter ID laws. My office is suing Mr. Holder to overturn his baseless decision and ensure Texas can protect its ballots the way other states are allowed to do.

  12. October 28, 2010
    The Democrats’ Final Recourse: Massive Vote Fraud
    By Selwyn Duke
    The reports are rolling in from all over the country. A Craven County, NC resident attempts to vote a straight Republican ticket, but his choices come up straight Democrat four times, despite receiving assistance from poll workers. In NC’s Lenoir County, registered Democrat Ervin Norville also tries to vote straight Republican but finds that his ballot has the names of several Democrat candidates selected. Boulder City, NV resident Joyce Ferrara says that when she and several others went to vote for Sharon Angle, they found that Senator Harry Reid’s name was already checked off. In Dallas County, TX’s congressional district 30, Democrat Eddie Bernice Johnson’s name was the only one on the ballot in a few locations (no, she isn’t running unopposed). And some states have been late in mailing out military absentee ballots, whose recipients, interestingly, are known for their Republican leanings.

    These happenings are generally referred to as “mistakes” and “glitches,” but if that’s all they are, then we’re witnessing a truly historic anomaly. Because either the mainstream media is now suppressing stories of mistakes and glitches benefiting Republicans, or the laws of probability have suddenly been rescinded and tossed coins are coming up donkey tails every time. Welcome to American elections, Venezuelan style.

    I have long said that this election would see vote fraud of unprecedented magnitude. And it does seem that a perfect storm of such criminality is brewing. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just struck down an Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship to vote, a treasonous act that facilitates vote fraud. Of course, some liberals are more forthcoming about their intentions; in Portland, ME and New York City, there is a push to allow non-citizens to vote. Not to be outdone, San Francisco seeks to allow even illegal aliens to cast ballots in school elections. Hey, why not? They’re not illegals — they’re undocumented Democrats.

    Then there is the matter of the fox guarding the polling house. It has now been learned that the technicians who work on the Nevada voting machines that have been checking off Harry Reid’s name are members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), a leftist organization that has given tens of millions of dollars to Democrats. (By the way, do you remember all the complaints about “antiquated” paper ballots after the 2000 election? I knew that all the talk about “hanging chads” and the need for modern technology would lead to vote fraud. After all, now elections can be swayed by a well-placed, skilled hacker, and there’s no paper trail.)

  13. Obama Administration’s Texas Decision Invites Voter Fraud
    March 15, 2012 RSS Feed Print

    There are few rights that are valued as dearly as the right to the universal franchise. Wars have been fought to secure it and wars have been fought to protect it. People have died defending it and they have died trying to make sure it was extended to others.

    Voter fraud cheapens the value of the universal franchise. There are those, like the current president of the United States and his attorney general, however, who act like it’s a fiction, some kind of right-wing fantasy that does not deserve our attention. And, as such, they are taking steps to oppose every reasonable effort to guard against it.

    [Check out our editorial cartoons on President Obama.]

    In recent months a number of states have moved forward with changes to their election laws designed to minimize the possibility of voter fraud. These include the abolition of same-day registration and the requirement that voters show a photo ID before being allowed to cast a ballot. The Obama administration has staked out a position in opposition, telling the state of Texas, for example, that its new voter ID law is unconstitutional because it discriminates against Hispanics, African-Americans, the elderly, and others.

    Texas is now the second state, South Carolina being the first, where the Justice Department has used its authority under the federal Voting Rights Act to block voter ID. “In regard to Texas, ‘I cannot conclude that the state has sustained its burden’ of showing that the newly enacted law has neither a discriminatory purpose nor effect, Thomas E. Perez, the head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, said in a letter to the Texas secretary of state,” the Associated Press reported earlier this week.

    [Peter Roff: Despite What Democrats Claim, Voter Fraud is Real]

    Consider what the Justice Department is saying. That the requirement to show a photo ID before voting is too intrusive, too expensive, and discriminatory against a certain class of people when federal law already requires people provide proof of identity to board an airplane, get a passport, or start work at a new job. Photo ID is also required when renting a car, purchasing alcohol, cashing a check or entering a federal building. Do these regulations also discriminate? One would think the same Justice Department that has blocked voter ID would say “Yes,” but they haven’t.

    Add to this the news that citizen-journalist James O’Keefe was able to demonstrate the potential for voter fraud is real in places like New Hampshire and Vermont, where someone working with him asked for and received ballots in the names of different people at polling places across the state and was given them without have to prove who they were.

    If a citizen-journalist can do such a thing successfully just to prove a point, what might a well-organized political campaign by a third-party be able to do that would affect the outcome of an election? It is clear that additional safeguards are necessary but the Obama administration opposes them, not because they are constitutional questionable but, more than likely, because they realize they are more likely to benefit from voter fraud than be harmed by it.

    [Washington Whispers: ACLU Leader Says Voter ID Law Akin to Jim Crow-Era Law]

    Moreover, the harm is immediate and cannot be mitigated. Once a vote is cast, that’s it. This has been the argument several times in recent years when the probability that voter fraud had occurred was high, as when felons have been found to have voted illegally—but, as no one can prove for whom they voted, there is no remedy available. The only way to guard against voter fraud is to prevent it from occurring in the first place.

    There are plenty of problems at the polling places in every election, not all of which rise to the level of outright fraud. In truth, however, fraud itself is rampant—from harassment at polling places to the signing of false names to nominating petitions to people who actually vote more than once in a single election or who cast a vote in the name of another. Such actions cheapen the rights and representation of each and every legitimate voter in the United States. It is indeed a strange world when a presidential administration asks for an investigation into alleged irregularities in a foreign election but turns a blind eye to the possibility of irregularities here at home.

    This is enough from me today. It is a hot button issue here…..very hot.

  14. Here is a question I have for everyone, brought up in comments at the end of last article. What about the National ID card? I am very opposed to it, for a variety of reasons, but I am not sure how others feel about it. Also, does the opposition to the National ID card contradict the support for voter ID? Does support from some of you for a national ID card contradict your opposition to voter ID requirements? What say you all?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I am also against a National ID. The States should run elections and should require valid ID (a free voting ID would solve the problem). Actually here’s what I really think:

      The Federal govt should be completely dismantled. We can do better than this, by a long shot.
      G. Zimmerman will not get charged with any crimes in Florida. If you are a race pimp, it sucks to be you, get over it.
      The New Black Panthers are no better than the KKK or any other hate group.
      The elected officials who shot off with their mouths about the T. Martin killing are ignorant, period. They should resign, they are not smart enough to hold public office.
      Why can’t the voters in the individual states vote for the ID requirement? Never mind, too much fraud to get it right 😆

      • I think a state voter ID requirement is more needed in some states than others. However, in a national election, I can understand a desire for consistency. Of course, dismantling the federal government would eliminate the need for this. 🙂 I do not have a problem with the existence of a Federal Government, but I would prefer it look more like the Articles of Confederation, where it is a very loose collection with almost no federal power other than interstate disputes, nation crime-fighting jurisdiction, and national defense. Everything else would be done by the states individually.

        As for your other stuff:
        1) Agreed, tho perhaps rebuild it in the manner I mentioned above.
        2) Based on the handling of the situation, I would like to see this one go to court.
        3) Agreed
        4) Agreed, tho the shooting off at the mouth about T. Martin hardly shows up on the radar as evidence of ignorance compared to the rest of the stuff those fools are up to.
        5) As mentioned, I am not sure where I stand on the state thing when it comes to national elections.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Jon, NBC misrepresented GZ totally. He is not a racist and I can prove it 🙂

          • My concerns in this case have nothing whatsoever to do with racism, real or imagined. It has to do with whether the threat was realistically valid as a reason for use of lethal force as a defense. I don’t care what color they were or whether or not the media tried to make the whole thing into circus of fake racism or not. I think the police made some bad calls and gave the benefit of the doubt too quickly. GZ might have been released without charges even with proper police work, but in light of the lack of it, charges have to be filed to get to the bottom of the whole thing. Then, of course, it might not be GZ fault that the police suck, and their ineptitude would have him going through what he should not, but the system is not perfect. If the police had been thorough, this never would have gotten as out of hand as it has, so they have already been part of the problem with GZ if he turns out ot be innocent.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              I have read the police report. Why is it bad police work, because the Corporate Whore media and the race pimps say so? GZ, in my opinion, has 1 million times the level of integrity than those who are accusing him.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                soon-to-be-released report dating back to one year ago, detailing George Zimmerman’s pivotal role in helping to achieve justice for an older homeless black man in Sanford who was beaten up by a local policeman’s son, followed by a cover-up of the incident. Zimmerman went to multiple black churches in the area to seek help for the victim, and that Zimmerman’s efforts culminated in the eventual arrest of the assailant.

                Apparently, information on this story has been readily available, but for whatever reason, the mainstream media has declined to follow-up on it.

    • Not sure I care. While I am against big gov. in general, I think they already have so much of the information that it just doesn’t matter. Where privacy is supposed to protect us, we know they are recording our communications and storing the info. The other side of it, keeping our SS #’s secure and such, might be aided by nat. I.D. When the IRS comes a callin’, I already feel screwed….

      • I hear you, not sure it matters to me either, in practice. I suppose the big thing that bothers me is that the national ID card is supposed to be a requirement, whereas voter ID is only a requirement if you vote.

  15. Just A Citizen says:


    As I said above, the picture ID is the last step in the process. So your attempt to pin the solution on this single tool ignores a very important part of the problem.

    The process is weakened due to other efforts that allow greater chance of fraud. This reduces the effectiveness of the picture ID. But then you get to argue the picture ID won’t solve the problem. They are connected.

    If you construct a system where residency proof is not required, where you don’t have to prove who you are, then YES, a picture ID is less effective. After all, it can only prove that you and the picture match.

    Don’t you think a picture ID would solve the problem of people picking up multiple mail in ballots?

  16. Am I the only one that thinks Santorum pulled out prematurely?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Hi Ray !

      Hope today finds you and the family healthy and happy! 🙂

      It’s possible, but may be related to his childs health issues.

      • Unfortunate – hope his daughter is ok. Was looking forward to someone/anyone challenging Mitt.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Mitt is the chosen one! The rest has been for entertainment only.

          • He always was. Odd how the establishment choice and the guy with all the money tends to win so frequently.. Also, while he’s make plenty of mistakes and said plenty of sincerely bone-headed things, and reversed his own positions so many times, I don’t have any idea where he stands on anything, it is very important that he is not a dimwit. He’s no dummy, unlike some of his competitors, and he’s not an ideologue. I’m pretty sure I’ll vote for the Big O, come November, but it’s not certain – we’ll see how the general goes. However, with Santorum.. well you best your sweet behind I’d be out there going door to door for the Big O. He’ll, I’d move to a swing state, just so that my vote might make a difference (we all know how NY will vote, so why bother?).

            It could have been Perry, though, if he hadn’t imploded so spectacularly. Another cowboy governor bible thumper from Texas would have turned out an EPIC vote from the left, but he had a chance there for a while. But he could have pulled together the right, I think, before losing the moderates and getting SLAUGHTERED in the general. The rest.. yea, that was just for show.

            … And queue the Gingrich countdown clock.. I say after (IF???) he gets killed in the next round of primaries. If he can pick up the full conservative vote (rather than splitting it with Santorum the way he has been), he might be reinvigorated by a few strong wins. Not that he can win the delegate count (or the general either, for that matter), but he could take it all the way to the convention with some strong momentum. Boy, what a show!

            Pass the popcorn!

    • Ray: Damn you for beating me to that joke!

      GMan, et al, re his daughter’s health: While, of course, I hope she is ok, her health is NOT why he pulled out (stiffles laughter). He pulled out (giggle) because he couldn’t win, he knew it, and he was making an ass of himself and damaging his party and his own political future. He pulled (*snarf*) out because he lost. His daughter’s health, true or not, severe or not, is an EXCUSE. It’s a way for him to pull out (falls out of chair) with a minimum of embarrassment.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      He needed to get out now if he wants to stay in the good graces of the good ol’ boy club.

      Now if we Tea Party folks can upend the Elephant party control, he will find himself OUT of the club in 2016. If not, we will probably see him presented as the “next” presumptive candidate. Assuming of course that Rubio or Rand Paul aren’t running then.

      Any ideas who the VEEP might be for Romney?

      • @JAC – no idea on a running mate – is Rubio a no-no? Jeb Bush?

        • Rubio is a possibility..

          Jeb’s out. Last name’s a killer. Simple as that. Put him on the ballot (even though he’s 1,000,000x better than W), and you’ll get crushed in the general when everyone who remembers those 8 years of hell shows up to vote. They’d have to be bat-shit crazy to even contemplate bringing him on.

      • It’ll be someone who stayed suspiciously quiet. If his last name weren’t Bush, I’d say Jeb. He’s going to want a spike like what McCain got with Sarah P. And that means choosing someone relatively unknown, with strong conservative credentials. (unknown to the average guy off the street, not necessarily unknown to people who spend all day on a wackaloon far right politics block populated by pirates).

        Your thoughts??

        • Buck the Wala says:

          If Jeb’s name didn’t end with a B-U-S-H, he’d probably be at the top of the ticket. Now, he doesn’t even have a shot at Veep.

          I doubt he’ll go with Rubio, and Romney will probably steer well clear of Paul Ryan. Hmm…this will be interesting….very interesting…

          • He’s in a tough spot. Typically, you have three choices with your Veep. Someone to fire up the base, someone to appeal to the moderates, or someone to geographically balance the ticket. He needs all three and that’s just not possible. The base just isn’t that into him. And moderates, who would probably like him, are off-put by his run to the right to win the nod – if he picked a strong moderate, that might reestablish his centrist credentials but it would suicide him with the base who already don’t trust him. So what’s a guy to do? My guess is that he’ll run to the center, but bring in a fire-and-brimstone pure conservative who hasn’t been prominent nationally as VP.

            • Buck the Wala says:


            • Buck the Wala says:

              You heard it here first.


              • uh huh….

              • gmanfortruth says:

                It won’t matter. If there is an election at all, it has already been decided. Actual voting has nothing to do with the outcome, the same globalist politician with a different colored shirt. Big waste of time even thinking about these idiots, it will change nothing.

              • USWeapon says:

                Are you contending that the election is rigged literally or that it doesn’t matter which side wins, we are screwed? Just want to be clear on what you are saying.

              • Well that’s very defeatist of you. I’m sorry you feel this way, but I hope it encourages you to stay home and catch up on Jersey Shore reruns instead of voting.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Mathius, I have already made it clear that I will not waste my time voting in a National Election. I will do the minimum needed to stay out of jail, but I do not acknowledge any of the legal power that they wrongfully perceive they have. To believe that a National Election will change anything is just silly, because you know full well it won’t change a thing. It’s not defeatist, it’s realistic! 🙂

              • Excellent. Now if I can just disenfranchise a million more conservatives… 😉

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Don’t you WISH you were that good? NOT! 😆

      • One would like to think that even though the base detests Romney it ain’t like they are going to vote for the other guy – and they hate Obama enough they’d vote for damn near anyone. Some reports I’ve read recently indicate that the Chicago machine is having a hard time marshaling support they way they pulled it in 2008 – and ftr/imho – this Voter ID nonsense will not matter much. I think we’ll see someone with solid conservative creds that will not campaign much with Romney – Romney has to go win all the Indies that voted for Obama in ’08 and convince those folks that even though he and Obama seem like the same person – he is the better choice after 4 years of Obamanomics. A conservative VEEP can rally more and more conservative venom.

    • USWeapon says:

      I think the writing was on the wall. He wasn’t going to get the nomination and I am not sure that this wasn’t the best move given the health of his little girl and given that the real battle from his perspective is against Obama.

      Do you think he should have stayed in?

      • I don’t know if it was or was not in the interest of his daughter. I honestly haven’t been following it that closely. But I think, as you say, the writing was on the wall. So, this was as good a time as he was going to get to back out as gracefully as possible.

        Toast. Time to fade into the background.

  17. gmanfortruth says:


    Are you contending that the election is rigged literally or that it doesn’t matter which side wins, we are screwed? Just want to be clear on what you are saying.

    It’s all the same, no matter which side wins, we’re screwed. So the election is rigged. It was decided before the actual vote, no matter the outcome, nothing changes and we’re screwed.

    • So, in other words, both. The election is rigged SO THAT it doesnt matter which side wins. That is why, unlike G, I support voting, but never for the two main parties, regardless of who it is, because the winner between the two main parties is irrelevant. I would rather have no vote than a vote for the status quo, but I would prefer most of all a vote for something else.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Jon, I prefer to expose the corrupt and let them know that their days are numbered. Wasting your valuable time accomplishes nothing.

        • I hear ya, but I figure I can do both, an hour on a november tuesday isnt going to waste that much of my time, and it sends a separate “days are numbered” message to boot. 🙂

        • USWeapon says:

          I wouldn’t say that spending an hour every other year to vote is really wasting time. Even if you just went and voted third party, you would at least be sending a message.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            USW, Just how well has that worked in our lifetime? Constant war, unending debt, yep, our government is doing a bangup job of fucking up!

            • Well, abandoning the system to the voters who won’t wake up certainly isn’t going to change that G. As you are aware, I am in agreement with you on the job our government is doing. But until the system collapses, it will do no good to just let the “stupid people” vote. As I said, even if everyone disgusted with the system just went and voted third party, it would at least have some impact on the system, as opposed to doing nothing, which changes…. nothing. Don’t fall into that trap of believing that not voting sends some message about legitimacy. You know by now, the government doesn’t really care whether we think it is legit or not…

              • gmanfortruth says:

                You know by now, the government doesn’t really care whether we think it is legit or not…

                Correct! It’s time it is replaced, not continued. It’s existence has exceeded its usefullness. Maybe that’s the message that needs to be sent. Any other ideas?

              • Bottom Line says:

                People vote….government does what it wants. People don’t vote…government does what it wants. People organize protests and throw a bitch fit…government does what it wants. People speak in front of congress,…government does what it wants. etc etc…

                As long as it has votes and to claim legitimacy, as long as it has tax revenue, as long as people do what they’re told, it’s going to continue.

                The only thing that will stop it, other than collapse on it’s own dead weight, is everyone uniting and refusing to vote or pay taxes, or cooperate with any of government’s bullshit. But that ain’t gonna happen because everyone is distracted, divided and conquered over things like ID’s. People are still arguing over ‘issues’ that only exist because of government. People still have faith in the government that enslaves them.

                When government pisses EVERYONE off enough to unite them, things will change.

              • BL and G, the government does not need votes to claim legitimacy, it can manufacture them if it needs to. All the little tyrannical “people’s republics” have votes. The lack of them would not chnage a thing. I can stop paying taxes and vote at teh same time. Even the Founders kept trying to ge the king to see reason, right up to the point where they went to war. So keep your guns ready, engage in civil disobedience, and attentd secret meetings concerning the future of the country after the tyranny is overthrown, but still tossing in a vote and protesting, making your voice heard, is not a bad thing. In fact, it might just wake up other people. we get a 10% third party vote, it will lead to a larger percentage next time, because it no longer seems like a wasted vote to people.

              • Bottom Line says:


                You make a good point. Indeed it has contingencies, but that’s not exactly what I meant.

                People go to work, pay taxes, vote and do things to engage and support it to be good amerikans, because they still believe in the current system. (thesis)

                What’s it gonna take for everyone to quit supporting it, to unite and stop arguing over things like party agendas, which is the superior of the TWO (duel) political philosophies, and/or ID’s, etc…? How bad before people start ignoring the government? How bad does it have to get before people start to see the current state as the anti-thesis? What will be the synthesis?

                Ultimately, no government is more powerful than the will of it’s people. When the thesis morphs into anti-thesis in the minds of the majority, revolutions happen, synthesis happens.

                Most people are still stuck on thesis. Some are starting to grasp anti-thesis. It’s gonna be a while, unless something big happens.

                Personally, I’m hoping a comet will hit Earth and wipe out about 90% of us. You know…’burn it…start over…maybe we’ll get it right next time. 🙂

  18. gmanfortruth says:

    I am trying to get back to writing again!

  19. gmanfortruth says:

    @Bottom Line,

    I hear ya my friend. The government is not the solution, they are the problem. Until both sides finally realize this, it will continue. When the governments credit card is cancelled, then the government parasites will take to the streets. Interesting how all the movies may be right and the big Zombie Apocolypse will actually be caused by a government failure. 🙂

    • Bottom Line says:

      @ Gman

      ” The government is not the solution, they are the problem. Until both sides finally realize this, it will continue. When the governments credit card is cancelled, then the government parasites will take to the streets. ”

      Exactly. I think you pretty much summed it up. Economic problems is the most likely to trigger it as economics effects everyone.

      ” Interesting how all the movies may be right and the big Zombie Apocolypse will actually be caused by a government failure ”

      Indeed. Its interesting how many movies are right about a lot of things. The media in general is chuck full of metaphors, emotional appeals, key words and phrases, numerical patterns and symbolism designed to appeal to the audience’s subconscious. And it’s all in plain sight. It’s like Goebbels and Jung(collective unconscious) incorporated into everything. I have to wonder, …who makes this stuff? …and why?

  20. gmanfortruth says:

    A small hijack, because only the Liberals in California could do this:

    Rape Victim Incarcerated To Ensure She Testifies
    April 11, 2012 by Bryan Nash

    A girl is imprisoned to ensure she testifies in rape case.A rape victim in California will be spending about a month in jail to ensure that she testifies against the alleged rapist.

    So far, the 17-year-old victim has neglected to show up in court twice. Therefore, the judge ordered that she be imprisoned so she can be brought to court to testify.

    The alleged rapist, Frank William Rackly, has six felony convictions dating back to 1992. This is his third time to be charged with rape, but the two previous cases were dropped. One of the alleged victims didn’t show up for trial, and prosecutors want to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

    However, the victim’s attorney, Lisa Franco, believes that the wrong message is being sent: “By putting the victim of the rape in custody just sends a message out to other victims that don’t report your rape because you’ll be thrown in jail.”

    But the prosecution says that the whole community should be remembered — not just one girl. In response to those who say that the imprisonment of the victim is a violation of her rights, the prosecution said: “But at the same time there’s the issue of protecting the community — when you have serious crimes of violence and you have a defendant with a serious prior record.”

    • This guy is an (accused) serial rapist. The crime, if he gets away with it again, will likely be repeated. Yes, she is a victim, but by refusing to show up to testify (twice!), she is making it impossible for the state to convict this guy and get him off the streets. And then there will be MORE victims. Why is it more important that she be able to walk free for a month than that other women not be raped? As a society, we have to balance rights and social obligations. And this is pretty clear to me. She was asked to testify, hard – yes, I’m sure. She refused twice. She chose the hard(er) way. But the state, as the prosecution points out, has to remember the whole community, not just one girl.

      There’s a thing about the law that some crimes don’t “belong” to the victim. That is, if you assault me, the police and DA will probably listen to me if I don’t want to press charges, but they don’t have to. The case “belongs” to the state, and they can prosecute whether I want them to or not. This is particularly relevant in domestic abuse cases where the wife refuses to press charges, the state can arrest and convict the husband anyway. Same with rape cases. You can want to not testify against him, but you don’t own the case – the state does – and they can compel you to testify. (note, I’m talking about legality here, not morality). The state considers this guy (understandably) a menace to society and women in general and they want him behind bars. If this woman were refusing to testify for something else, say a bank robbery to which she was witness, nobody would bad an eyelash.

      I don’t like it.. and maybe there’s a softer way of dealing with it? But I do understand the stance of the prosecution, and I don’t think they’re necessarily “wrong” – it’s a tough position to be in.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Mathius, It is totally rediculous to jail a rape victim because she is exercising her right of silence. Only in the liberal mindset could this possibly be OK. Maybe less restrictive conceal carry laws and a real good Stand Your Ground law would solve the problem. Jailing victims of crime is moronic 👿

        • exercising her right of silence

          ::takes out pocket edition of the US Constitution::
          ::flips to Amendment No. 5::

          […]nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness[…]

          Huh. Go figure.. looks like you’re right! Seems like she does have a right to refuse to be a witness… oh wait…

          […]nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself

          Oh, that’s right. The “right of silence,” better known as a “right to remain silent,” applies only against SELF-INCRIMINATION. Not against testifying against someone else. That’s why we have SUBPOENAS. It’s not a suggestion. It’s an act of law. A subpoena REQUIRES you to testify. If you refuse, you are breaking the law. And people who break the law can be put in jail.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Sacrifice the individual for the good of society.

        Soooooooooooo freaking ALTRUISTIC of you.

        • Hey, I’m a liberal. That’s kind of our thing.

          But yes, let’s look at the balance sheet, shall we:
          On one side we have: a serial rapist wandering free, a high likelihood that other INNOCENT women will be violated and traumatized for life, and the message to other would-be rapists that you can rape and get away with it.
          On the other side we have: a woman who committed the CRIME of disregarding a subpoena (failure to appear) being locked up for “close to a month”, and the appearance to other rape victims that they may be compelled to testify whether they want to or not

          Ok, which is more important? the inconvenience of being locked up for close to a month based on your refusal to obey the law (not because she was a victim, but because she didn’t testify – this is an important distinction!) or multiple other innocent women being raped? You tell me.

          • Why won’t the girl testify? What if the rapist threatened her with her family’s life(s)? I think I would shut up too, to protect my family. Sounds like the state is CYA for the fact that they couldn’t keep a 6 time felon behind bars to begin with.

            • Objection! Calls for speculation.

              Meanwhile, maybe the state is just trying to make damn sure they get him this time. Who knows. Doesn’t change anything I just said. She’s not in jail for being a victim. She’s in jail for refusing to testify which is – wait for it – A CRIME. It’s a CRIME. She’s a CRIMINAL. Criminals go to JAIL.

              Yes, she’s in a lousy situation, and again, I think there might have been softer options than locking her up (ankle bracelet?), but you don’t get to ignore a summons. If subpoenas were optional, they wouldn’t really work, now would they? I’m sure people are locked up all the time to ensure they appear.

              • Sounds like a good argument for armed self-defense. If she had shot the SOB this never would have happened. No jail time, no destruction of her mind by being raped, no worries about future rapes by this evil creature.

              • Objection! Off topic.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Objection overruled and you are in contempt of court! You can spend some time in jail for that and see how it feels, Slick 🙂

          • Just A Citizen says:


            I am throwing the Bull Shit flag on you.

            The argument that she is in jail for breaking the law, specifically failure to follow a subpoena, is NOT an argument that the law does, or should, compel her to testify.

            To try and hang your argument then on the absence of a specific Constitutional provision is obnoxious to the concept of freedom and liberty itself. You seem to forget the little clause that says, all rights not otherwise mentioned are STILL retained by the people.

            • There is a well established legal principle in this country that you do not have the right to remain silent outside of your own self defense and a handful of special exemptions (Dr/patient, spousal, religious, journalistic, etc). Forget moral rights – that’s not what we’re talking about here. The rights in this country as interpreted by the law, the founders, and the judicial branch DO NOT grant you the right to refuse to testify.

              She is not “in jail for breaking the law,” so much as she is “in jail to force compliance with the law.” She broke the law by failing to appear – TWICE – and they’re locking her up to stop her from breaking the law a third time – because the state has a compelling interest in getting this guy off the street which supersedes her non-right to selfishly subject others to the danger of being raped by not telling the court on-record what happened. Again, I think there is probably a better way this could have been handed, but priorities, people, priorities. You can’t undo the harm of his past crimes, but you can stop future ones.

              And, in fact, I thought the Constitution was pretty clear: by specifying the “right to remain silent” was for self incrimination, not just a general open-ended right, it seems pretty obvious that they did not intend to carve out a general “refusal to testify” right. That’s not to say one doesn’t or can’t exist, but it sure isn’t interpreted that way by the US government.

              • Where is Mathius and what have you done with him…..There is some guy on here under Mathius’ name that believes in the rule of law?

                **sits down contemplating a Red Bull**
                ** no, that won’t work**
                ** reasons to himself now that he has answered Todd…Buck is next**

              • “your own self defense”. Is this not a reason, in fact, THE reason she is not testifying?

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Your Right to Remain Silent can not be infringed, INCLUDING to make you testify against yourself. This is a specific instance where the Govt’s historic use of force to compel testimony is “forbidden”. This does not give Got the authority to compel testimony in other situations. You have a RIGHT not to testify……..PERIOD.

                The Govt was not in the habit of FORCING people to testify against others. So there was no need to identify this protection.

                The Constitution is NOT the source of our Rights and ALL our RIGHTS are not listed there.

                If I have a right to speak then I have an equal right to NOT speak.

              • Try the Red Bull.. it’s delicious, I promise.

                My preciousssssss…

                Meanwhile, when have I ever given the impression I don’t support ANY rule of law? I am a statist, remember? I don’t support laws which impinge upon private citizens without sufficient net-societal benefit. But compulsory testimony (for non-defendants) is something, I think, I can get behind.

              • JAC,

                Your Right to Remain Silent can not be infringed, INCLUDING to make you testify against yourself. This is a specific instance where the Govt’s historic use of force to compel testimony is “forbidden”. This does not give Got the authority to compel testimony in other situations. You have a RIGHT not to testify……..PERIOD.


                […]nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself[…]

                That’s the clause. NOT “nor shall be compelled [..] to be a witness, including against himself.” That’s not what it says. How is this unclear? You can’t be made to testify against yourself. Somehow, you take that and turn it into you can’t be made to testify at all? That’s just not realistic.

                I think your reading is BONKERS.

                The Govt was not in the habit of FORCING people to testify against others. So there was no need to identify this protection.
                Nonsense. The subpoena has been around and in use for centuries. ::some googling:: Here we go:

                This writ was invented by John Waltham, bishop of Salishury, and chancellor to Rich. II. under the authority of the statutes of Westminster 2, and 13 Edw. I., which enabled him to devise new writs. Source.

                And, per Wikipedia, Richard II ruled from 1377-1399.

                And the US legal system is directly derived from the English legal system. So, yes, the US ABSOLUTELY was in the business of compelling testimony.

                The Constitution is NOT the source of our Rights and ALL our RIGHTS are not listed there. True, but that doesn’t mean you get to imagine new legal rights and just insert them into legal practice at will. (Again, we’re talking about LEGALITY, not MORALITY)

                If I have a right to speak then I have an equal right to NOT speak. Tell that to the lawyers.

              • Jon Smith,

                “your own self defense”. Is this not a reason, in fact, THE reason she is not testifying?

                Again, the exact clause: “[…]nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself[…]”

                It’s your own self-LEGAL-defense. It’s not “to protect yourself,” but to “incriminate yourself.” Think about it in context of the mob. The mob was (is) dangerous, but just because testifying put you at risk didn’t give you the right to not tell what you know.


              • No need, I think you are right, this is legally ok. I am not sure about the subpoena itself, tho. Failure to appear AND failure to testify are an issue, but the judge that issued this subpoena is where I have an issue. I get the greater good, stop the bad guy argument as well. Not sure that making an example out of this lady will really impact future cases tho.

                Still say this is a great argument for armed self-defense, stand your ground, concealed weapons, etc.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                hahahaha….sips coffee….hahahahaha

                I’m having way too much fun just sitting back and reading along, sorry Mathius. If it makes you feel better though, I will say that you are 100% correct.

              • Rule 176.8 Enforcement of Subpoena.

                Contempt. Failure by any person without adequate excuse to obey a subpoena served upon that person may be deemed a contempt of the court from which the subpoena is issued or a district court in the county in which the subpoena is served, and may be punished by fine or confinement, or both.

                Texas Statute

              • Thanks for the support, buddy. In case anyone is wondering, here’s a picture of Buck the Wala:

                Buck The Wala.jpg

              • Buck the Wala says:

                And that is the last time I give you any support.

              • Jon Smith,

                Not sure that making an example out of this lady will really impact future cases tho.
                I don’t think they’re trying to make an example out of her. If they where, they’d fine her or hold her longer or actually charge her with something, etc. It seems to me that they’re just trying to make sure she testifies – nothing more.

  21. gmanfortruth says:

    @Black Flag,

    Flagster, I have read that Taiwan is making a deal with Chine to do all business within Taiwan in Chinese Yuan instead of the U.S. dollar. What is your take on this?

    • ::puts on Nifty Jack Sparrow Hat::

      Ahem, it doesn’t mean anything because it’s all just fiat currency. Chinese fiat, American fiat, it’s just paper issued by a government and given value “because I said so.”

      ANARCHY, 2012!

      ::takes off Nifty Jack Sparrow Hat::

      Wow.. I think that might be a size too small..

      It doesn’t matter. To me, this reads more of a question of improving access to a gigantic market right next door than one of fleeing the dollar. My two cents.

    • Gman…..nothing to get excited about. Taiwan is in China’s back door but its currency is based on the Taiwan dollar (backed by the US Dollar) China is no different than any other country wishing to manipulate their value. Taiwan is the perfect offshore “clearing house” for the yuan. And the currency speculators are lining up to launder the Chinese yaun… plays right into China’s hand in currency manipulation and the amount of American debt.

      Taiwan knows that the United States is the key to its survival and that will not change. And China knows that an American backed Taiwan….is perfect for their currency. It is not military strategy that willn defeat Nations in the future,,,,,it is economic strategy that will wield a more powerful punch. China is in the big leagues when it comes to manipulating currecny. The United States is bush league and this Obama strategy of amassing debt makes him the most important figure in China’s strategy, The amount of Chinese political donations to Obama is staggering.

      The yuan will not replace the dollar in Taiwan, in my opinion. Taiwan is not stupid….neither is China…….the stupid economic policy is amassing debt and China is the largest slave trade in the world……but… one here cares.

      • The amount of Chinese political donations to Obama is staggering.

        My understanding is that foreign agents aren’t allowed to contribute to political races. Can you back up this claim?

        • Certainly can….and it is easy…the money is laundered through offshore accounts……and through corporations that are US registered……Taiwan is full of them. This will be the third thing that I have to do today,,,,answer Todd, answer Buck, and now you. But I think I have the time today to do that. However, let me add this…….I used Obama as an example….he is not the only one and has not been the only one…..and will not be the only one. He happens to be the largest recipient. But, follow the currency trading companies, then follow their registry. That is a great start but I will try to get to you today on a starting point.

          The other thing….to point out, in China’s defense…they are not the only foreign country backed donations. Keep your eye on Germany and their future involvement in the Euro in relation to the USD. Some interesting things going on over there in Europe.

  22. @ BF……interesting movement in the World Banking system and the appearace of the changing of the German stance relative to the Euro debt. I am speculating here. which makes me very dangerous,….but I do not see the advantage to Germany in long term investment in the Euro….and the solvency of the ECM. We follow the purchase of trading coins from foreign countries very closely and amount of silver, gold, palladium, platinum, and a resurgence in .999 copper seems to have tripled to Germany in the last 9 months. You watching this?

  23. gmanfortruth says:

    This is rather comical. Obama is such a lying POS!

  24. Another nail in the coffin for electric cars…

    WARREN, Mich. (WXYZ) – There has been an explosion at a lab facility on the campus of GM’s Technical Center in Warren.
    At least one person has been injured and was taken to a nearby hospital.
    All employees have been evacuated from building number 2-7, a lab at the Alternative Energy Center.
    The Warren Fire Department reports that there was a lithium battery explosion at a lab on campus. Fire and emergency crews are on the scene.
    GM released the following statement:
    We are aware of an incident this morning in one of the laboratories at the Alternative Energy Center at the General Motors Technical Center in Warren, Mich. Fire and emergency authorities were called to the scene. The building was evacuated. employees have been accounted for. We are aware one employee was injured and taken to an area hospital, We will share more information as it is confirmed.
    Warren Mayor Jim Fouts calls the explosion a “major blast” that blew out three large windows and eight-inch doors. There were 80 people in the general area at the time of the explosion.

    Read more:

  25. @ Todd……sorry for the delay in my answer.

    Obama disdain for the military.

    In a graduating speech to students, h e also asked them to forego the business world and the military in favor of careers in public service. “I ask you to seek these opportunities when you leave here, because the future of this country — your future — depends on it. At a time when our security and moral standing depend on winning hearts and minds in the forgotten corners of this world, we need more of you to serve abroad. As president, I intend to grow the Foreign Service, double the Peace Corps over the next few years, and engage the young people of other nations in similar programs, so that we work side by side to take on the common challenges that confront all humanity.” Was this a snub of our capitalist system and military service? In my opinion, yes.

    This is the man who employed Demond Mullins, a radical ex-Marine who has slandered the troops as adulterers and murderous occupiers. Does employing people with this attitude show disdain for the military….in my opinion…yes.

    “Dreams from My Father” — excoriates “the powerful” for their “dull complacency and … steady, unthinking application of force of a military full of killers, of … more sophisticated military hardware.” He is the man who actually ran a campaign ad bragging he will cut investments in missile defense systems. “I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. I will set a goal for a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal: I will not develop nuclear weapons.” Then he says, “the American military is a force for darkness in the world.” Is this the comment of a CIC that believes in the US Military or one that despises the US Military? In my opinion…disdain.

    “that our enemies are kindhearted folks looking to compromise, that military spending is provocative and disarmament proactive.” Is this a policy of a world power or a disdain of the American military?

    And the newest one…..the best way to eliminate the professional military is to do away with what was promised….Health Care. Trashing Tricare
    Obama to cut healthcare benefits for active duty and retired US military.The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The proposal is causing a major rift within the Pentagon, according to U.S. officials. Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges. The disparity in treatment between civilian and uniformed personnel is causing a backlash within the military that could undermine recruitment and retention. The proposed increases in health care payments by service members, which must be approved by Congress, are part of the Pentagon’s $487 billion cut in spending. It seeks to save $1.8 billion from the Tricare medical system in the fiscal 2013 budget, and $12.9 billion by 2017.
    “We shouldn’t ask our military to pay our bills when we aren’t willing to impose a similar hardship on the rest of the population,” Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and a Republican from California, said in a statement to the Washington Free Beacon. “We can’t keep asking those who have given so much to give that much more.”
    Administration officials told Congress that one goal of the increased fees is to force military retirees to reduce their involvement in Tricare and eventually opt out of the program in favor of alternatives established by the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.
    Dempsey said the military is making tough choices in cutting defense spending. In addition to the $487 billion over 10 years, the Pentagon is facing automatic cuts that could push the total reductions to $1 trillion. “I want those of you who serve and who have served to know that we’ve heard your concerns, in particular your concern about the tiered enrollment fee structure for Tricare in retirement,” Dempsey said. “You have our commitment that we will continue to review our health care system to make it as responsive, as affordable, and as equitable as possible.”
    Significantly, the plan calls for increases between 30 percent to 78 percent in Tricare annual premiums for the first year. After that, the plan will impose five-year increases ranging from 94 percent to 345 percent—more than 3 times current levels. According to congressional assessments, a retired Army colonel with a family currently paying $460 a year for health care will pay $2,048. The new plan hits active duty personnel by increasing co-payments for pharmaceuticals and eliminating incentives for using generic drugs.
    The changes are worrying some in the Pentagon who fear it will severely impact efforts to recruit and maintain a high-quality all-volunteer military force. Such benefits have been a key tool for recruiting qualified people and keeping them in uniform.The administration is asking troops to get by without the equipment and force levels needed for global missions. “And now they are going to them again and asking them to pay more for their health care when you’ve held the civilian workforce at DoD and across the federal government virtually harmless in all of these cuts.The massive increases beginning next year appear timed to avoid upsetting military voters in a presidential election yearAdditionally, the critics said leaving civilian workers’ benefits unchanged while hitting the military reflect the administration’s effort to court labor unions, as government unions are the only segment of organized labor that has increased in recent years.”

    The hypocrisy…..eliminate the military health provisions while exempting all other federal employee health services. If that is not disdain….what is.

  26. pookisaurusrex says:

    I just looked up the definition for disenfranchisement, and as it applies to voter ID, I ain’t buyin it! disenfranchised – deprived of the rights of citizenship especially the right to vote. As I understand it, you have to be a citizen to vote, correct? So that being the case, having to prove your citizenship in order to cast your vote is not disenfranchisement no matter how you look at it. If a citizen has an opportunity, and they do, to acquire a state ID, then this shouldn’t even be an issue. I know that in most states you’re required to have an ID with you at all times. So please explain to me how disenfranchisement comes into play on this because I don’t understand at all.

    • Hiya, Pooki! Or is this Kristen?

      Let me ask you a question, purely hypothetical:
      What if you had to pay for the ID? Would the fact that the poor can’t really afford to pay count as disenfranchisement in your mind?

      • Mathius…..a hypothetical back at ya……these same poor must have id to get food stamps and welfare checks….must have id to cash social security checks………if the poor have this id….why not produce it for voting?

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Not all poor are receiving food stamps and welfare checks…

          • Buck, didn’t you know that all poor people are freeloaders living the high life? You should really pay more attention.

            D13, the question is relevant, not in terms of being able to afford it, per say, but in terms of what you consider appropriate barriers to voting.

            • Ok…take your position, then…….money aside. Where is the barrier now? If it is not affordablility…then what?

              • The point is entropy. People are lazy. (Mathius’s 2nd Law). And the more hoops you make them jump through, the fewer of them will vote. And these hoops are already done for the middle and upper class. We all have IDs. But it’s not done for the lower classes, the working poor, many recent immigrants, and non-English speakers. These are the people you’re making jump through an extra hoop, and they won’t by-and-large do it. So they can’t vote in your world.

                Maybe there’s something to be said for only letting people vote if they are serious about it (like the Citizens in Starship Troopers), but that’s no how America is set up. Here, if you have a pulse and a citizenship, you vote. And we shouldn’t be doing things, especially STATISTICALLY UNNECESSARY THINGS, that interfere with that.

              • USWeapon says:

                But it’s not done for the lower classes, the working poor,

                Yes it is done for them. How else are they getting government assistance?

                many recent immigrants,

                Since when are non-immigrants eligible to vote? USW Correction, meant non-citizens not non-immigrants

                and non-English speakers.

                If you can’t even understand the candidate’s position, I don’t want you voting.

              • 1) Are you assuming the poor are more lazy?
                2) Are you saying that rights have to be made easy for people to engage in or they are somehow being restricted? Should everyone get a free spot on radio or TV to excercize free speech or else they are being restricted?
                3) Recent immigrants (who have become citizens) are more likely to have an ID than almost anyone else in the country, its part of the process of getting citizenship, and it is very important to that group, in general.
                4) The working poor (not including under the table or black market work) do have IDs, they are required as part of setting up a business or getting a job. You cannot even fill out a W-2 without an ID.
                5) The point is to make sure you really have a pulse, and citizenship. Meaning, you have an ID to prove you are a citizen, and to prove you are who you say you are, as opposed to claiming you are a person who no longer has a pulse. As for statistics, see my other post, the effect of fraud is NOT as important as the fraud itself, especially in this system, which is two-party in practice, but not as a systemic or legal requirement.

              • JS:
                1. No, they’re equally lazy, but unlike us, many of them don’t have ID’s already. To them, this is an extra hoop. To you and me, it isn’t a hoop at all since it’s already done.
                2. No, but if you had to fill out a 10page form in triplicate every time you criticized the government, you would still be technically have “free speech,” but you’d probably be more sparing about using it.
                3. I cede this point.
                4. Then why do so many not have IDs? Maybe they are working under the table, or they’re self-employed hand knitting tea cozies and selling them for cash. Or many they’re stay-at-home mothers. Whatever, it shouldn’t impact their ability to vote.
                5. I completely disagree. For me, any time you’re going to make a law which affects someone’s freedom (ie, requires them to do or not do something), it has to be balanced against the net social benefit. In this case, the benefit is negligible. See MY breakdown. The fact may be that were’ not “officially” two party, but we are none the less. And even in a 10-party system, random fraud should roughly mirror the broad voting trends and be, again, statistically negligible. And negligible benefit does not justify the government imposing on you. I’m surprised you’re not with me on this one.

                1. Not everyone is on assistance.
                2. I’m not sure what you’re saying.
                3. I’m not going to bother dignifying that one.

              • USWeapon says:

                1. Not everyone is on assistance.

                Really? Who among the poor you are talking about are not using at least one of the following services which already require ID: Medicare, Welfare, Social Security, WIC, unemployment, etc…

                2. I’m not sure what you’re saying.

                I am saying that recent immigrants are not citizens and cannot vote so they really are not a part of this discussion.

                3. I’m not going to bother dignifying that one.

                I understand. It was certainly a cheap shot on my part. But let’s be real. Do you really think that someone who doesn’t speak the language should be voting? The reality is that those who are legal citizens and thus eligible to vote can speak english. That is just how it is. What group of non-english speaking citizens eligible to vote can you identify?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                USW — there are a lot of complete morons out there that can speak English (although, admittedly in many cases, not all that well), yet you have no problem with them voting. Remember: English is NOT the official language of the US.

              • USWeapon says:

                However, Buck, there really are not any voting eligible citizens that cannot speak english. As I asked Matt to do, can you identify any group of non-english speaking CITIZENS (thus eligible to vote)?

              • USW,

                Have you ever been to LA? There are tens of thousands of LEGAL citizens (most likely the American-born children of illegal immigrants) who don’t speak a word of English.

                If you live somewhere where everyone speaks a different language than you, but in some places Spanish is so prevalent that there’s just no need to learn English. I bet the same could be said for a lot of people living in ChinaTown, Little Italy, Korea Town, etc.

                I’m with Buck (shocker!).. I’m far more concerned about stupid English speakers voting than your average non-English speaker. Remember, there is news in other languages, the internet is available in all languages, etc. Just because they don’t speak English doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re uninformed.

                Honestly, I’m a bit surprised at you for this one.

      • pookisaurusrex says:

        This is Kristian, I really have to change that screen name…lol! In the state of Florida a state issued ID costs all of 10$, if they have the money to buy their smokes or whatever else they need, that requires an ID, they have the money to get the ID. Now if the state were asking an exorbitant fee for they ID then I would probably agree with you, but the fact is they don’t.

        • Hi Kristian… really do need to change it. 🙂 With the state of mind of a lot of folks…howm many read it so fast they do not put the R in rex…….

        • Buck the Wala says:

          But that’s $10 that’s being required to be spent in order to exercise the most basic of your legal rights…

          As I posted the other day, provide a free photo ID to all eligible voters (upon registration, perhaps), and require that photo ID be shown at the voting booth. Do that, and I’ll compromise and support the voter ID requirement.

          • WI offers free ID to any that can’t/won’t pay for one. No proof of dire circumstances necessary. And the Dems still filed suit against it, which is now in courts and probably won’t get settled until after Recall election(s) here. Very convenient.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Am unfamiliar with the WI law in question or the ability to obtain a free ID. Will need more information.

          • Actually, some states have this.. There was a kerfuffle when the DMV, which is responsible for issuing them, instructed their workers not to inform anyone about the option of a free ID but to only talk about it if they asked first. That is, it was available.. but you had to know about it to ask. I can maybe dig this up, but you get the point, it’s not enough that it’s an option, it has to be publicized as well.

            THEN, I will also get on board and support this.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            coming from the guy who claims paying taxes is our civic duty.

          • pookisaurusrex says:

            Seriously Buck? They pay for their driver’s license when issued and they pay to have it renewed every 4 to 6 years. You have to have ID for so many things and you really want me to believe that there are people out there who can’t produce and ID or come up with 10 lousy dollars to get one? If we were living in a thrid world country then maybe, but the fact is we don’t. I’ve met panhandlers that make more than I do and I have a damned job! If they don’t have an ID it’s because they chose not to have one.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Growing up in NYC, I know plenty of people who did not have a driver’s license — no need for one. Couple that with the cost, which can be a burden for certain people. To you and me, sure, its only $10, but to others that can be a lot of money.

              Question: I am willing to concede the requirement of ID to vote. Why are you unwilling to concede the cost? Why not simply provide a state-issued ID to all eligible voters free of charge?

              • They have to eat the cost AND make it publicly known that it’s free. I gave the example yesterday of the DMV with this program in place where they instructed the workers not to tell anyone about it unless specifically asked. That’s not good enough for me.

              • pookisaurusrex says:

                I have no issue with there being no cost. If the state is going to require you to have an ID then it should provide said ID. I pay enough in taxes else where, having that for free wouldn’t hurt my feelings.

  27. @ Buck….Texas 2008 Presidential Election

    Registered Voters

    Voting Age Population (VAP)
    Percentage of VAP Registered
    Percent of Turnout to Registered
    Percent of Turnout to VAP
    Non citizen (Immigrant and undocumented) Registrations
    Challenged Ballots (Proof of residence not available at voting precinct)

    * Primarily Bexar and Harris Counties
    ** Not reconciled to 312,147

    To me it seems that 312,147 non citizen voter registrations is significant and these were the ones caught. It also seems that 102,946 that tried to vote and caught at the precinct is likewise significant…especially since some of the races in Harris County were decided by less than 200 votes. Am digging deeper because the turnout at the 2010 elections was only 38% of registered voters but can find no figures on non citizen registrants nor challenged ballots as yet.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      So if I’m reading these numbers correctly, the percentage of challenged ballots would be about 1.2% of the turnout (102,946 / 8,077,795). I’d agree that a 1.2% voter fraud rate would be significant.

      But just because a ballot was challenged does not really mean anything in terms of voter fraud — why was it challenged? what was the outcome? if it was an instance of fraud, would it have been stopped by the voter id law in question?

      See where I’m going with this?

      • I’d also like to add that 1.2% voter fraud would be significant…… IF… if all those fraudulent ballots voted the same way. That is, if there’s a deliberate organized effort to stuff boxes with the same vote. But if it’s just random people (this guy votes twice, that guy wasn’t registered, this other guy is in jail, etc), then it’s reasonable to assume that their votes ROUGHLY mirror the broad voting trends. That is, of the 1.2%, say, 48% vote blue-shirt, 52% vote red-shit.. even if the state-wide numbers were 46/54, it wouldn’t really matter because the EFFECT of the fraud, in a two party system, would largely negate itself. In this case, it’s a 4% Red/Blue difference in the fraudulent ballots (which seems plausible to me). This translates to 1.2% * 4% = 0.048% of fraudulent EFFECT. So the fraudulent 1.2% of ballots shifted the end result from 46.048% / 53.952% to 46/54, and that’s pretty inconsequential.

        Does this make sense? Most of the fraud should cancel itself out, I would think, as long as it’s random and not organized.

        *The author of this post takes no responsibility personal or otherwise for the mathematical content of this comment. This comment paid for by Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow. Not approved or paid for by any candidate.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Oooh, that’s a good point as well. Didn’t think about that.

          • Some quick double-checking of the math:
            1. Legit voters voted 46/54
            2. Fraud represents 1.2% of total vote
            3. Fraud voters voted 48/52

            Their effect was 0.024%.. half of what I thought. Roughly a 40th of a percent.

            • See what statistics can do? What a fun course that was…….why are you ignoring the 312+ thousand illegal registrations or bad registrations and the 100K that tried to vote? Could not those have been possibly fradulaent had they actually got to the polls? Just the 312K equates to 3.9 percent of the vote.

              • ok, plugging in 3.9% into the spreadsheet…That’s a 0.078% swing (taking all other assumptions as the same). Or are we assuming they all voted as a block? If they all voted the same way, that translates to 1.794%-2.106 (depending on which way they all voted) (given the pre-established 46/54 legal-voters numbers) – and that is a significant effect.

                Is your suggestion that all 312k registrations (A) were actually illegal (B) actually voted (C) voted the same way?

                Because, again, even if they’re such an absurdly large percentage of the vote, if they roughly mirror the broad voting trend, their effect should be pretty minor.

              • No sir,,,,,they did NOT get voter registrations so not vote was allowed….but it is still fraud to knowingly file false registration. But since this registration was primarily two counties, ( I will look at those numbers ) the effect if missed would have been staggering…..especially in races that were called with less than 200 votes. Texas caught it both at the precinct level and at the registration process…..but that does not negate
                the fact that it was tried. How many slipped past, I wonder. Do not know. What we do know is that the 312+K were undocumented and illegal immigrants…..we do know that. Since this is a State issue, I will discount using the broad brush of using comparitive numbers from other states.
                The 102 thousand did not signify whether they were legal or illegal…just rejected at the precinct level. (Someone brought in a voter registration card and it did not match the property rolls…..and no other proof of residency was given = reject) In Harris county alone, there were 1,171,142 votes cast in the Presidential election….the spread of votes was….21 thousand and change in favor of Obama. Since the false registrations were primarily attributed to Harris and Bexar counties….I really wonder what the true impact was there? Especially in light of the mysterious fire that burned every thing three weeks before the election. In Bexar,Obama won with less than 30,000 votes out of over one million……too close for me. So assuming a simple majority of 51% of “illegal” registrants…..both elections could have been altered. because the vote count was within 1-2%. HOw many slipped through?

                This is the only point I am trying to make. I think it is very important.

        • That is PREPOSTEROUS! Both sides are corrupt, so that makes it ok? No one cares about voter fraud if the effect is negligible, not matter how much there is, right? It’s ok, your vote counts and there is no need to weed out corruption because the corruption balances out to be minimal effect! It’s like Red Bull and vodka, an upper and a downer together should be perfectly healthy, right? Cause they cancel each other out! Right? Wrong!

          This is not a two party system. This is a system designed to not need parties and permit as many parties or candidates as is wished. We just happen to have two predominant parties, we are not required to follow that. So, 1.2% is fraudulent. For a third party person whose candidate didn’t even get that much, its a huge difference. If nothing else, it is an increase in the total number of votes for the two main parties, a significant effect for third partiers and for anti-voters alike.

          This has nothing to do with effect, it has to do with fraud.

      • Yes sir… far, I have been told that the “challenged” ballots were actually stopped at the precinct because of a lack of proof of residency. As to the 312K…those were caught in the registration process and no voter certificate issued because of fake names, dead people, and such. BUT it does show that there was a concerted effort at registering undocumented and illegal voters….especially Harris and Bexar counties. That alone, to me, makes it worthwhile to have an ID. The outcome at the precinct was even though they had a voters registration, no residency could be proved and they were not given a ballot. The outcome of the 312+ thousand was that no registrations were given out.

        Texas still requires some proof at voting. If you are not on the property rolls matching your registration, you will not be given a ballot or allowed to vote. You better have some other proof that you are eligible to vote in that precinct and a utility bill is not accepted as proof.

        Texas has state issued ID’s…and they are free. But you are checked when you apply for one. With a picture ID, it is assumed you have passed any residency test to get one.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          But based on your evidence of ‘voter fraud’, the fraud was stopped without the requirements of the new voter ID law, no? In other words, the system seems to be working quite well, unless you have evidence of voter fraud that had occurred that would have been stopped with the new law…

          • Ok…granted, we have a system in place that has stopped a majority of it…but it seems to me that we can eliminate excessive cost to the State and redundantcy with a simple picture ID with the same requirements as a passport…..proof of citizenship gets you the ID. As you stated, it is a basic right to be able to vote….but it is not a basic right of a non citizen. This would also eliminate the need for voter registration and registrations rolls as well. Seems simple……at least to me,

            • Buck the Wala says:

              How would it eliminate the need for voter registration and registration rolls? You would need to compare the photo ID to something. You would need to check off the name from the registration roll to stop the issue of double voting.

              • Good morning, counselor. Sorry, I was making the assumption that with the technology that we have today, it would be an easy task to create a data base that an ID card would have a magnetic strip. In order to get the ID card, you would have to go through the hoops to get it. At that point, it seems easy to have a statewide data base tied to a central voting control… passports are done……go to the precinct, swipe your card, it comes up clear and you vote.

                Same as using your credit card at a has pump….your credit is in a data base and that is checked against it to prove your credit card is worthy….same idea. Silly me……

              • Oh, and the precinct workers would look at the id and make sure the picture matches…..but silly me again…..

              • Buck the Wala says:


                Again, I will 100% support mandating voter ID to vote if the state (or federal govt) provides a free ID card to all eligible voters. I feel that is a fair compromise that alleviates both our concerns. Plus, any concerns with coming up with the funds to make these cards should be mitigated by savings through the use of technology as you just described. Do we have consensus?

  28. @ Mathius……entropy, huh……..hmmmmmmm…

  29. gmanfortruth says:

    Just who is the most likely to commit or attempt to commit voter fraud? Those who have the most to gain (or lose) financially. I wonder who that would be?

    Mathius, what proof do you have that these possible disenfranchised people actually exist? Oh! NONE!

  30. @Matt
    1. Understood, but I would like to see how many people really do not have IDs that would be valid under the proposed laws. I think it may be a lot fewer than you think.
    2. I take your point here, it might not stop me, but I would agree that this would be infringing on free speech. There is a difference, however. Voters without IDs can still vote, but their IDs require a further check, or at least that was the impression I was under. A further check to make sure that more than one person has not voted as you and that the ID you are using is an actual living citizen should be in order.
    4. I don’t know, I really need to see some real numbers on how many really don’t have IDs and why. If it is a matter laziness, I am not sure I agree that it is a real restriction, it is a request to have someone prove they are who they say they are, and that who they say they are is a living citizen. Besides, it is not stopping them from voting, it is making their vote go through extra vetting.
    5. No, corruption is corruption, fraud is fraud. That it is having little effect should not matter, it still is wrong. Petty theivery may not have much effect on the economy, but it is still wrong and still illegal and for good reason. I am not justifying government imposition, and societal benefit is not my yardstick anyway. I am opposed to government restriction of rights. Voting is a government construct, as is citizenship. I have no problem with government regulation of government stuff. Sort of like having no problem with government restriciton of corporations, but a huge problem with government restriction of businesses.

  31. HOLDER: I know that many of you are greatly and rightly concerned about the recent shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. Three weeks ago the Department of Justice launched an investigation into this incident, which remains open at this time and prevents me from talking in detail about this matter. However, in recent weeks Justice Department officials, including assistant attorney general for the civil rights division, Tom Perez, have traveled to Sanford, Florida, to meet with the Martin family, the community, and local authorities. The Justice Department’s peacemakers are continuing to meet with civil rights leaders, law enforcement officers, and area residents to address and to help alleviate community tensions.

    Justice Dept’s peacekeepers? When did they get invented?

    • whoops..peacemakers..that’s worse!

    • USWeapon says:

      apparently as soon as Holder and the DoJ realized there was a way to help secure the black vote by furthering the false notion that this was a racial issue rather than a murder issue…

      • gmanfortruth says:

        MAY be a murder issue. 2nd degree murder charges are filed and Zimmerman is in custody. Now we get to look forward to another Casey Anthony event, yippee! Will there be riots if he is aquitted? Can he get a fair trial now that the media has totally and wrongly destroyed his name? Sad day for Americans if you ask me.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Actually I believe Sanford had requested the involvement of the Justice Dept here.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          THe best part of all of this is that now that charges have been filed, the Corporate Whore Liberal Media and all the Liberal race pimps can put it to rest. The genious of the Sanford special prosecutor, to arrange for this to occur so that down the road all charges will be dropped when noone is really paying attention. Now Sharpton and Jackson can go chase another ghost and the media can concentrate on mind raping the public about Romney and the GOP. All the while, the dollar is devaluing and gas prices are rising, along with food prices, fueling a new news fire “food riots”. Get your popcorn out folks, it’s gonna be a wild ride this year!

        • USWeapon says:

          They asked for the involvement of the Justice Dept in the investigation, not in “peacemaking:, which the DOJ has no business doing anyway.

  32. This is a movie. It didn’t happen exactly the way they say, but it isn’t too far off. GIs, having returned from WW II did not like the corruption and had to bear arms to get rid of it.

    More documentation of this interesting event:

  33. charlieopera says:

    Gman, calm down … we’ll get to see all the evidence … finally. Whatever the outcome, I only hope the law itself is scrutinized into oblivion. The fact there will be a hearing as to whether or not this case can be thrown out (dismissed the way others have), is frightening (to my mind). I doubt it’ll happen in this one. I suspect if they get to trial, Zimmerman will not be able to get a fair trial and will ultimately plea (just a belief … and maybe some smart strategy). It’s a mess … I’m more interested in the law being abolished than the results of the case itself.

    Knicks, in spite of Davis being a turnover machine, bounced back tonight … whew …

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Charlie, We may not be that far apart on the law itself. The intent of the law has been misapplied many times, which has likely led to some wrongs being allowed. This is the problem when government gets involved in a persons individual right to self defense. IMHO, if you attack someone, you should get your head blown off. Keep your hands to yourself and there will be no problems. Same goes with someone who wants to threaten someones life with a deadly weapon, BANG! Problem solved. In time Charlie, people will become much more polite and the criminal element will have to get a real job. I live in such an area, most people are armed and there is no crime to speak of. People are very polite and kind to oneanother, holding open doors and helping the elderly are just some examples. An armed society is a polite society 🙂

    • 2nd degree murder is quite a charge if you consider the facts that have been published for this case, there must be something huge that we haven’t seen or heard to qualify that charge.

      My guess is aquittal of that charge unless they can show video proof that Zimmerman started the fight. With lack of video proof, I think a lesser charge could result in a conviction, but not murder.

      Sounds like a Casey Anthony trial all over again, but this time an aquittal has the fear of race riots especially if they somehow go to trial this summer and the race baiting turns this election into a fluster cluck.

      • It’s alllllllllllllll about the jury.

        Also, are they going for 2nd degree murder WITHOUT any of the lesser-included charges? A lot of times, they’ll charge someone with murder, M2, M3, manslaughter, etc. Then HOPE the jury buys the top charge, but leave them the lesser charges if not so they can still get a conviction.

        Typically, you give only the top charge if you’re sure of a win and don’t want to give a weak jury the “out” of a lesser charge. Basically, you’re saying “he’s guilty, you know it, nail him to the wall or let him walk” hoping that the jury doesn’t really have a choice and nails him to the wall. But if the case is weak or wishy-washy or if there is strong opposition in the jury, you get the Casey Anthony acquittal, and you’re far better off charging with the whole gamut on the grounds that (from the prosecutor’s perspective) something is better than nothing.

  34. Following some links from the lead story at Michelle Malkin I came across this group (of thugs), Color of They’ve been around. Van Jones’ and his cronies. They are against Voter ID. They have taken it to intimidating businesses who help fund ALEC, a group of conservative state legislators who help form public policy, and who have drafted sample legislation for states to refer to in drafting their individual voter id bills. Here is the letter that is circulating to the businesses..( big corps..Coke, Pepsi, McDonalds)

    Dear President/CEO and Board,

    I want to alert you to the fact that the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) – which your company funds – is pushing discriminatory voter ID legislation that suppresses the votes of blacks, the elderly, youth and other minorities. Bills based on ALEC’s model legislation have been introduced in 34 states, and have already passed in seven states.

    Although proponents of voter ID laws claim the goal is to reduce voter fraud, there is no evidence that such fraud occurs with any regularity in this country. What is clear is that these voter ID laws unreasonably increase barriers to voting access for large numbers of people and could disenfranchise up to 5 million people across the nation. These laws are part of a long history of racist and discriminatory restrictions on voting designed to disenfranchise African Americans and other underrepresented groups.

    I presume your company does not want to support voter suppression, nor have your products or services associated with discrimination and large-scale voter disenfranchisement. I urge you to immediately stop funding ALEC and issue a public statement making it clear that your company does not support discriminatory voter ID laws and voter suppression.


    So it’s the same game they pulled on Rush..intimidate those businesses funding ALEC. THUGS!
    Interesting reading at both sites:

    • But they’re not racist 🙄

      For years, the right wing has been trying to stop Black people, other people of color, young people, and the elderly from voting — and now some of America’s biggest companies are helping them do it. These companies have helped pass discriminatory voter ID legislation by funding a right wing policy group called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

      ALEC’s voter ID laws are undemocratic, unjust and part of a longstanding right wing agenda to weaken the Black vote. Major companies that rely on business from Black folks shouldn’t be involved in suppressing our vote. Please join us in demanding that these companies stop funding ALEC.

      • It’s all they got. Race bait, race bait, race bait, bully, bully, bully. For those companies who still fear being called “racist” and cave to their tactics, shame on you.

        • Kathy….do not get in an uproar over this…….the race issue is falling on deaf ears around the country….it is like chicken little…….

    • Buck the Wala says:

      So what should a group do if they disagree with a conservative organization?

      They write a letter requesting companies donating to the conservative organization stop funding — INTIMIDATION! THUGGERY!
      They organize a boycott of that company’s products due to its donations to the conservative organization — INTIMIDATION! THUGGER!

      For some reason, and I hope I’m wrong here, I have a feeling that if it was a right-wing ideological group organizing a boycott of companys donating to MoveON or the ACLU, you would support their efforts and use it as an example of the power of the people….

      • Just A Citizen says:


        This is NOT just a “disagreement” with a conservative organization. It is outright fraud used to intimidate using a threat of RACIST label being applied to the company.

        As to appropriate methods in general, write all the letters you want.

        Organized boycotts have become a use of coercive force and should be abandoned. Which could easily be done if business owners/managers simply grew a pair.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          So to recap:

          Me, an individual, writing a letter = GOOD
          Me, an individual, choosing not to purchase products of a certain company = GOD
          Me, talking to others and organizing a collective boycott = BAD?

          • Just A Citizen says:


            No! You can tell others all you want. But that is not what is happening today. These boycotts are driven by “organizations” with political agendas. They are funded by “others”.

            It has become a tool of intimidation and extortion.

            It is one thing to tell others what you think. It is entirely another to directly “threaten” someone. The latter in my view is immoral.

            • I’m sorry.. jumping into the middle of this.. are you talking about how the conservative Florida Family Association got Lowes and others to pull their adds from All-American Muslims because they considered the TLC show to be “propaganda that riskily hides the Islamic agenda’s clear and present danger to American liberties and traditional values.”

              Is that the kind of thing you’re talking about?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Come on Mathius, that’s completely different….

                But I do remember a certain outcry from some on SUFA and many on the right decrying the efforts of Muslim groups to boycott Lowes and ‘intimidate’ and ‘threaten’ Lowes…

              • Just A Citizen says:


                YES. Others include boycotts of Dixie Chicks, Lowes & Home Depot (for selling red cedar lumber), Limbaugh, Beck, etc.

                But the example above is different and you and Buck know it. It is not only use of force, threatening a company, but it is the use of RACISM as the scare tactic. Especially when the charge is not based on FACTS.

                There is a time when boycotts are moral, in my opinion. That is when the target can be proven to be causing HARM to someone.

                The best example would be the plant dumping pollution into the river, and proven evidence that pollution is harming the people downstream. But that is not simply a disagreement over political view points, opinions, or some contrived issue, like “disenfranchising 5 million black people”.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Let’s try again.

              I, an individual, am outraged by the political lobbying of a certain right-wing organization. I decide I’m going to advocate against that organization. In doing my research, I find that JAC-Co. regularly donates money to the organization. I write a nicely-worded professional letter gently requesting JAC-Co. stop donating. I get a form letter back and JAC-Co. continues to donate money. I tell my friends, family, friends of family, co-workers, neighbors, etc. We together from a block and write a petition urging JAC-Co. to stop donating money to this right wing organization. Included in the petition is signatures of hundreds, maybe thousands, of like-minded individuals. In the petition we decry the tactics and policy goals of the right-wing organization and argue that if JAC-Co. continues to make such donations we will boycott its products. We form a group whose goal is to advocate against the right-wing organization and begin taking donations. We advertise against the right-wing organization and, in the advertisement, we provide a list of companies, including JAC-Co. that regularly donate to the right-wing organization. We strive to make people aware of the companies who are funding the right-wing organization so that they, as individuals, can make a determination whether to continue to give their hard earned money to these companies.

              Did I cross your line? Where so?

              • ::Does a Horshack impression::

                Ooh! I know! I know! Ooh! Me! Me! ::raises hand:: Me! I know where! Ooh! Can I answer?

                The answer, of course, is that you’re protesting and boycotting against CONSERVATIVE interests. See, it’s just fine when right wing people do this – then it’s just the free market at work. When the left does it, well then it’s “others” and “organizations” with “political motivations” who are “manipulating” the system with boycotts “threats.” Seriously, I thought you’d have this figured out by now.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Not yet, but you got one foot on the line. When you sent separate mailings targeting the donors.

                The TARGET is the organization you dislike. Listing Donors is not harmful in itself. But then increasing focus on Donors with the intent to harm the donors is the first step. Stop here and might give you a stay out of jail card.

                Start organizing and orchestrating a boycott and your toast.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Sorry but I’m just not seeing it.

                The organization I dislike doesn’t put out any products. They operate strictly on funding through donations. JAC-Co. and other corporations provide that funding. My only means is to stop the flow of cash. Thus, I organize a boycott.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Of course you can’t see it. Your ethic is one of “sacrifice the individual for the greater good” and “the ends justify the means”.

                If you want to oppose the group then do so with your own ideas. But alas, you can’t so you try to intercept their funding source instead. You threaten the financial well being of others because you can’t make a good argument on the merits.

                Just like these jack boots threatening RACIST labels against these companies. Doesn’t matter their story is bull shit. All that matters is they have the power to stick RACIST on your chest.

                Like I said. This crap will stop when Corporate types get some brass. But that won’t happen while we have a media and political machine in bed with the extortionists.

  35. “She hasn’t worked a day in her life…..” Really? Is this really the path the O campaign wants to go down? If you choose to stay home and raise your family, you don’t know anything about what is going on in the world? Who supposedly is having the “war on women”?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Kathy, Nobody has ever claimed that democrats are intelligent life forms. Liberalism will turn brains into mush 😆

    • Buck the Wala says:

      This has nothing to do with democracts nor with liberalism. It was a stupid comment, plain and simply.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        This has EVERYTHING to do with Democrats. It is part of the primary “narrative” they are going to use against Romney. So it is not a “stupid” comment. It has been polled, massaged and polled again. A good example of how all the little rats follow the same marching orders handed down from above.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Sorry JAC, but I will disagree with you on this one until I hear the line being parroted by others more directly affiliated with Obama’s campaign. Thus far, it was one comment which I’ve heard commentators on both the left and the right denounce. So yes, it was a stupid comment.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            My God man, have you not been listening to the rhetoric on the lefty talk shows, news, and blogs?

            This woman is a “strategist” for the DNC. The DNC is directly linked to the Obama Campaign. They did not have to sit still and be neutral because there is no other candidate in the Dem party this year.

            The comment is tied to the new narrative that Romney is NOT one of US. That he can not RELATE to us because he is RICH. His wife is RICH and has never had to worry about the stuff all the REGULAR women have to worry about.

            He is “old fashioned” when it comes to women. He doesn’t see them as equals. This was NOT a mistake. This is a linkage to those who have concerns about his MORMON religion.

            It is possible that some will cry out against it, but I assure you this was not just some mistake. The real angst here is the direct insult to his wife, NOT the content of the insult. They know you can not attack his wife directly. You will see this narrative continue to be played.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              We shall see JAC, we shall see.

            • JAC……this is a torpedo amidship…….this will not go away…she is a major player in the DNC.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Good morning Colonel. I forgot my civility earlier this AM.

                Who’s ship?

                The POTUS campaign has quickly dealt with this comment itself. Cover is now solid against it. However, it is the THEME that will remain.

                We will not see a direct and poorly worded attack on Mrs. Romney again. But we will see comments to the affect that as a Rich and Privileged woman she has no idea how tough raising kids can be for “single mothers” or those “scraping to get buy”. She will be tagged as the epitome of Marie Antoinette.

              • Oh, I know this…..but the damage control that is going on now is unbelievable and this is not a minor player. It has already hurt him… will see. This was not just a shot across the bow…..

              • It won’t hurt him. It won’t even be remembered. If the average guy on the street even hears about it in the first place, it won’t make a dent in November. Right or wrong, major player or minor player, rude or taken-out-of-context or that-just-came-out-wrong, it doesn’t matter one iota. Not one. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nichts. Rien. Gornisht. (I’m not so sure about the spelling on that last one..)

                In the general. Joe Voter and Jane Voter aren’t going to remember what someone with ties to the DNC said in April. And even if they remember, they aren’t going to care much, if at all. So, we all might as well move along, there’s nothing to see here. And, by the way, while this quote was certainly tactless, it wasn’t necessarily that bad. It’s true that she’s never had to face a concern about how to feed her kids. It’s true she’s never had to worry about losing her home. It’s true that blah blah blah blah blah. It was a stupid thing to say, and it certainly could have been said better. But that doesn’t equate to, for example, an extraordinarily prominent conservative radio host repeatedly calling a girl a slut and a prostitute on a nationally syndicated radio show dozens of times over several days while deliberately misrepresenting her views. In the scheme of things, it’s actually pretty mild. And, again, no one in the real world cares, so can we please, please stop taking umbrage?

                But, just in case, here’s the best thing I’ve read on the subject:

                Washington, D.C.-area commuters are advised that all buses have been rerouted today to drive over Hilary Rosen, by order of the Democratic National Committee, so expect service delays.

              • If you ask me..which you didn’t :).. you’re not giving the average guy on the street enough credit this time around. Take Occupy Whatever as an example.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Mathius, The voters are going to look at the price of gas and food, unemployment and the economy as a whole and realize that Obama is a POS and will boot his skinny ass to the curb 😆

              • I’m giving him more credit than he deserves.

                The “average” guy on the street is an idiot with his head buried firmly in the ground. He believes what he’s told without questioning it. He bases his opinions on his gut. He will vote blue or red because his daddy voted blue or red or because his friends do. He will not do any independent research about the candidates. He will not watch the debates. He does not follow the news, and changes the channel if it get’s political boring. He does not care what some midlevel-possibly-linked-to-the-DNC talking head said about the wife of some candidate who hasn’t even won the nomination said and how it might be indicative of an overall disdain for blah blah blah blah blah snore. If you put a gun to his head, he probably couldn’t tell you with a dozen guesses what DNC stands for, but he can name for you the entire starting lineup of his favorite team along with all the relevant statistics and recent injuries. He probably thought that Romney had a wife, but he didn’t know her name, and still doesn’t even now. It’s a coin flip whether he knows that Romney is a Mormon or not. He didn’t vote in the primaries. He probably won’t vote in the general. He thinks the economy sucks but doesn’t bother to figure out why or who to blame. He has thousands of dollars of credit debt and lives beyond his means without saving anything and is mystified why he can’t seem to make ends meet. He drinks cheep domestic beer and can’t find Iran on a map, but knows somehow that they’re evil and are trying to kill us for our freedoms or something.

                No, if anything, I am giving him too much credit by assuming that he won’t choke to death on a pretzel before November, rendering his opinion moot.. not that he knows what “moot” means, anyway.. It’s probably one of those foreign words. People should learn to speak English good.

              • Mathius, The voters are going to look at the price of gas and food, unemployment and the economy as a whole and realize that Obama is a POS and will boot his skinny ass to the curb 😆

                Yes. 100%.

                Exactly, this is EXACTLY how the “average” voter will make up his mind how to vote.

                “Hmm… the economy doesn’t ‘feel good’ right now. I’m going to vote for the other guy. NARF!”

  36. Texas being punished for refusing Federal funds with caveats.

    The Obama Administration is punishing Texas for refusing medicaid funds and unemployment funds with caveats by removing….are you ready for this……the emergency airlift wing at the Joint Reserve Fort Worth Base and sending them to Montana. This emergency airlift wing is used for hurricane relief and emergency response to the Gulf of Mexico. It is the only airlift wing that is available for this duty except the one in Southern Florida. . This airlift wing can respond to all hurricane and gulf emergencies from the tip of Texas to the Florida Panhandle within three hours. Now the response time will be 48 to 72 hours. It is a C130 airlift wing that is designed for emergency airlift missions and the aircraft are especially designed for flying in…….get ready for it……hurricane weather. Of course, it takes millions away from Texas.

    Now, the last time that I checked, I could find no records of hurricanes in Montana…..sigh………………….more outstanding planning.

    • Oh, I forgot that the secondary mission for the 130 wing………..drug patrol on the gulf coast and the Texas border… being discontinued.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      But Colonel, I thought you always said Texas can take care of its self and doesn’t need anything from the feds!

      And remember, this is really a brilliant move since, as climate change continues, it is only a matter of time until Montana sees its fair share of hurricanes! We need to make sure they are prepared asap!

      • Of course, how stupid of me……but this airlift wing was also for Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama coasts. Trust me, we can take cae of ourselves….but this was a Federal response issue….We actually have three 130 airlift aircraft as part the Texas Air Guard.

        But I did forget about the global warming issue…….how could I have been so insensitive….I was thinking rational.

  37. @ Buck……..consensus confirmed, kind sir……I can go along with this. See how easy it is to reach a reasonable result when intelligent, good looking, and rational thinking men can get past politics, Red Bull, Coffee, and DP?

    • Buck the Wala says:

      I never get past coffee….

      Now what say everyone else on SUFA?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13, Buck

      So now you guys have agreed to make ME pay for all those ID cards for people who don’t pay taxes. Thanks…… 😦

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Its for the greater good…

      • Actually JAC, I think you know me better than that. I see it being that there is no cost as the savings of the tech will pay for it. Now, I will agree with you as it is tax money that would supply the cards but I can compromise on this issue for two main reasons. The tax money is already paying for the voting procedures now. The virtual elimination of the stuffing ballot box would yield results that would impact our dollars to a greater extent…..the election of responsible people in races that would make a difference. The Chicago way would be gone on this process…

        So I see a greater savings in long term money which would reduce our tax burden.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          I understand your goal, and commend you for a good idea. But I can already see the outcome.

          Poor black guy goes to vote and the magnetic strip reader fails.

          Guest what we have to listen to next?

          I reject the entire Picture ID = disenfranchisement argument. It is pure unadulterated BULL SHIT. So here we are “compromising” over some speculative, never been proven theory as opposed to actual cases of voter ID fraud. But yes, I understand it is the pragmatic thing to do. A small cost to stifle the Bull Shit rhetoric.

          As I said way back, the picture ID is just one aspect of a voter fraud program. Now lets look at Election Fraud in totality.

          • I do agree with that, JAC…..but in Texas,,,,,,it is a major item. I posted the proof already.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              It is a big deal in many other places as well. We need to clean up the system from top to bottom.

              People need to take a close look at County Clerks and Secretary of State positions.

              I know of two examples where fraudulent signatures on absentee ballots were “certified”. That ol’ Nothing to see here folks, move on…..

              Oregon’s Sec of State recently canceled a “primary election” unilaterally claiming that a run off was not needed. Only 45 days before the primary. When challenged in court by one of the men running the Court said they couldn’t rule until the Sec issued a decision on the appeal. The Sec claimed the judge ruled in her favor and refused to issue a decision on the appeal. Thus ENDING the legal appeal.

              The result of this action? Elimination of a known popular Republican from the race.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                JAC, If there is an election in November, for President we get Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb. The whole system is broken!

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Colonel, You do realize that you comprimised with a person who’s sole argument is a factless fairy tale? At least fraud is factual!

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Like it or not there are valid arguments to be made that the voter ID laws can and will lead to disenfranchisement. I concede that it is impossible to determine an actual number. But if you really believe in the need for voter ID laws to protect against voter fraud, then why not allay others’ concerns by providing free IDs?

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Because you have gone from THE ID causes disenfranchisement to the COST causes disenfranchisement.

              Which enforces my view the entire claim is pure bull shit.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              P.S. “Like it or not there are valid arguments to be made that the voter ID laws can and will lead to disenfranchisement. ”

              Really? When? Where? I haven’t seen one presented here yet.

  38. So Buck…You claim you will support voter id if free ids are given. Will you also then condemn Color of Change for their antics regarding voter id?

    • Buck the Wala says:

      I personally beleive that providing free ids would reconcile the requirement with the issue of disenfranchisement that worries me. If Color of Change agrees, then they will stop their campaign, but if they believe that that the voter ID requirement would still lead to disenfranchisement and raise valid concerns, then why should they stop their campaign?

      • Oh! That’s just like voting ‘present’. I’ll take that as a no.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          I don’t see any reason to condemn Color of Change for their tactics if they raise legitimate concerns that, based upon the laws being proposed, even with providing for a free ID, there remains a potential for disenfranchisement.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I WORRY that frogs might grow wings and start flying. Now lets compromise on a law that will prevent my WORRY.

  39. Wow….EBT cards being used on cruises now………

    • ::sigh::

      I really wish I could shoot people like this.

      I hear it’s legal in East Texas.

      • I just saw a special on CNN that was going over this….CNN? Who woulda thunk it? Not only on cruises, but bail bondsmen have taken it, Jet Blue has taken it for transportation, Hard Rock in Vegas takes it….several others were mentioned.

        And it is legal all over Texas……we will even teach you how to shoot.

  40. Any body watching the damage control unit coming out……a special white house briefing called to distance them from the statements made against Mrs. Romney by someone who is a minor player in the Democratic party…….until the question was asked of the White House Press Secretary……..does a minor player in the democratic party have access to the White House 37 times since the start of Obama’s Presidency. That is greater access to the White House than the combined visists of the Joint Chiefs of Staff…..then all of a sudden the topic was switched to Obama’s Ledbetter Act in which the White HOuse Press Secretary said that his (Obama’s) first thing to do was sign that legislation that required equal pay for women and that shows his intent……then the question was asked…if that is the case, why is the pay of the White House women 20% below that of the men……….there was no answer.

    • Been away for most of the day and doing some catching up now. This has also opened (reopened?) the door to asking questions about Michelle’s work history, including questions on the patient dumping scheme she was involved with in the Chicago hospital and why exactly her law license was suspended (insurance fraud issues rumored). Ooops! Really didn’t mean to go there!

      Also, JAC, you were right about Fluke. She also happens to be a client of this PR firm that this Rosen (and Anita Dunn) are a part of. Grooming her is exactly what is happening.

      On another note, what was on all of your schedules today? How about this tough one from the big O? Meet with media to tell them how to spin the Buffet Rule and one other quick meeting.

      Obama Schedule || Thursday, April 12, 2012

      2:40 pm || Conducts interviews focusing on the Buffet Rule with anchors from WCMH in Columbus, OH; KCRG in Cedar Rapids, IA; KMOV in St. Louis, MO; and KOLO in Reno, NV; Diplomatic Room
      5:00 pm || Meets with senior advisers

      • Good comment on one site re Rosen.

        “So is she also against stay at home “welfare” moms? Well maybe we actually agree on something. I too am against all the moms that stay at home, but allow me to pay their way.”

  41. gmanfortruth says:

    Finally, someone with common sense!

    • Mathius™ says:

      If “common sense” is so rare that you have to exclaim when you “finally” find it, then maybe it’s not so common?

      Also, it has never been my experience that Alex Jones has any of it, common or otherwise.


      • gmanfortruth says:

        If “common sense” is so rare that you have to exclaim when you “finally” find it, then maybe it’s not so common?

        THis I can agree with, but should have said, “from any media source”. My bad there! 😉

        You have very little experience to date, so your opinion of media sources is irrelevant.

  42. In a string of unrelated but equally remarkable cases, in the last week three, separate federal courts – including the U.S. Supreme Court – have taken the EPA to task for regulatory overreach. We’ve already blogged about Sackett v. EPA and Mingo Logan Coal v. EPA. In the most recent of these cases – decided yesterday – the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the EPA “had no legal basis” for disapproving 2006 air quality regulations promulgated by the state of Texas as part of its duty under the Clean Air Act to adopt and administer a plan for implementing federal air quality standards.

    In other words, the EPA tried to usurp the regulatory authority given to the states by the Clean Air Act – just one more part of the EPA’s misguided efforts to try and make it more expensive and more difficult to operate existing utilities, including coal-fired power plants (making it harder to include coal as part of our diverse energy mix is a recurring theme – today the EPA is proposing new regulations that essentially ban new coal power plants). The case is Luminant Energy Generation Co. and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, et al. v. EPA.

    You can check out all three opinions on, the website for the Chamber’s public policy law firm, the National Chamber Litigation Center.

    Spoiler alert: the EPA doesn’t fare well in any of these opinions. As a teaser, in Sackett v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously said that the EPA was “strong-arming” regulated parties; in Luminant Generation Co., et al. v. EPA the Fifth Circuit ruled that EPA had “overstepped the bounds” of its authority; and in Mingo Logan Coal Co. v. EPA, the D.C. District Court described the EPA as engaging in “magical thinking.”

    Maybe the courts are going to keep states rights…………this is a good thing.

  43. President Obama keeps pushing for gun control. “I just want you to know that we are working on [gun control]. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar,” President Obama told Sarah Brady, the former president of the Brady Campaign, this past spring.

    His push as been quiet but relentless.

    Just this past week Obama signaled that he was going to just ignore two new parts of the 2012 Omnibus Spending bill. Although he signed the spending bill into law, he simultaneously issued a so-called “signing statement,” a note that presidents have started attaching to legislation stating how they interpret the law they are signing or whether they believe part of it is unconstitutional.

    Obama’s statement claimed that Congress couldn’t put restrictions on how he wanted to spend to fund lobbying for gun control and the National Institute of Health studies of gun control.

    But why should the federal government use taxpayer dollars to pay for lobbying?

    Obama has had numerous false starts on gun control. Just in November, his administration moved to ban target practice on public lands, but the opposition was so swift and strong they immediately backtracked.

    A couple of weeks ago the Obama administration suffered another embarrassment. It was discovered that the Obama administration oversaw the sale of guns to Mexican drug gangs in its Fast & Furious program to bolster statistics of guns crossing over to the border to these very drug gangs.

    This scandal is quite incredible as the Obama administration ordered gun dealers to make sales to Mexican drug gangs against their wishes to help the administration’s push for more gun control. And this follows the revelation in July that the Obama administration had pushed federal agents involved in the Fast & Furious scandal to support gun control regulations during their congressional testimony.

    It doesn’t help that the Obama administration started pushing these sales at the same time they wanted to bolster their case that America was supply illegal guns to Mexico backfired. All this undercut any justification for new regulations and destroyed any support that they might have had.

    With 90 congressmen signing a “no confidence” resolution in Attorney General Eric Holder’s handling of “Fast & Furious,” last week Holder lashed out against his critics. “This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American,” Holder told the New York Times. Holder seems unwilling to recognize the genuine outrages the administration’s gun-control agenda has produced.

    Still the administration has successfully manage to push through gun control regulations in many, less visible ways: — The Obama administration instituted a ban on importing “historic” semi-automatic rifles into the US. — In sharp contrast to the Bush administration, President Obama strongly supports the UN Arms Trade Treaty even though he knows that any such treaty are unlikely to obtain the two-thirds vote in the Senate needed for ratification. What the regulations will do is lead to severe restrictions on private gun ownership around the world.

    The administration instituted new rules on selling “high-powered rifles,” defined as a caliber of greater than .22. — The administration nominated Andrew Traver, someone who supports gun bans, as the head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

    Obama has stuck by Traver despite his nomination being stalled in the Senate for a year and the fierce opposition it has generated.

    Obama’s most lasting impact on gun control is likely to be through the federal court judges he appoints. His most visible appointments have been the gun-control advocates he has made to the Supreme Court.

    Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan headed up President Clinton’s push for gun control when she worked for his White House during the 1990s. And Justice Sonia Sotomayor has signed on to a Supreme Court opinion stating that there is no individual right to “private self-defense” with guns.

    The pro-gun control views of Obama’s nominees have played a role the Senate filibustering of two Appeals Court nominees. Caitlin Joan Halligan was particularly controversial when nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because she opposes an individual’s right to self defense and – even more damning — she was one of the trial lawyers who had sued gun makers. Thus in New York v. Sturm & Ruger, she argued that gun makers should be liable for the criminal acts of third parties but not given any credit for the benefits from self-defense.

    If elected to a second term, Obama will end up appointing over half the federal judges. That sure can make a big difference.

    Most importantly, the Supreme Court is only one vote away from reversing the 5 to 4 decisions that so narrowly struck down the handgun bans in Chicago and the District of Columbia.

    Two of the Justices who voted to strike down the bans, conservative Antonin Scalia and moderate Anthony Kennedy, will be well into their 80s during the next administration.

    While a couple of Justices have made it to 90 while serving on the court, remember the rare glimpse into Obama’s views during the 2008 campaign when he referred to those “bitter” Americans who “cling to their guns, cling to their religion.”

    It surely fits his earlier statement: “I don’t believe that people should be able to own guns.”

    Yet, despite all this evidence of an anti-gun agenda, recent articles by the Associated Press and other news media paint Obama as a moderate on guns and as somebody who wants to “protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens” and merely support so-called “gun safety” measures.

    Of course, they are wrong. Unfortunately, Obama’s patient “under the radar” campaign seems to be working. He is fundamentally changing the courts and leaving them much more hostile to gun ownership. If Americans catch on, this could still be a major issue in the 2012.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Good Morning Colonel 🙂

      I like to look back in history and understand the endgame about things. When it come to gun control, I think the about 56 million people were slaughtered after gun control was enacted in their respective countries. With that being said, I equate those who propose gun control as future murderers who should all be lined up and tarred and feathered (hot tar only) . Then the enviro nuts will come out and whine about all the feathers that were used. Since we can’t win no matter what we do, maybe we should outlaw liberalism all together. 🙂

      • Even I do not want to outlaw liberalism……sometimes they have good ideas but the implementation is wrong. For example, I am a proponent of “universal healthcare” but universal to me, does not mean free health care and it does not mean that because you are richm you should pay more. This mantra of “fair” is pure hypocrisy and this I understand because the liberals have their own elite. So, it is laughable when I hear Biden and Obama hit this fair mantra and it only resonates with the young and those wanting free rides.

        It is funny that they want to create laws and then want to do away with them at the same time. But, we need them (liberals)…..even if for entertainment. But as you know, kind sir, I am fiscally conservative…..but will fall on the moderate side on social issues. So,I cannot claim to be far right at all. I believe in some social systems as a help but with very stringent guidelines. For example, EBT cards…..I fully believe that fraud is rampant to the tune of over 50%. This is my belief because I see it on a weekly basis. The gentleman that used his EBT card on the cruise line would lose his privilege for life….and the cruise line would have suffered severe economic penalty for accepting them and by severe, it would be in he hundreds of thousands of dollars. You do not go on a cruise as a “mistake” and accepting EBT cards is not free enterprise. But………

        Have a great day, sir, and may the winds of fortune be at your back and remember….NEVER…stand downwind of a spitting camel. They can hock a loogie further than any quaterback can throw and on a more straight line.

        • For example, EBT cards…..I fully believe that fraud is rampant to the tune of over 50%.

          Good “idea” – check
          Rampant Fraud – check
          Tune of over 50% – …. can you substantiate this? My guess it that it’s Rampant (with a capital R), but 50% is probably a substantial overstatement. I have seen Horrible abuses (capital H) with my own eyes, but I would opine that as with so much else, we only really notice the abuse and never see the proper use. That is, people doing the right thing sail under the radar while the jackass going on cruises winds up on the news. This kind of thing tends to inflate our impressions of how things actually are. My gut (which is by no means a scientific indicator) says fraud – FRAUD – is probably in the neighborhood of 5%. That’s fraud, which is people lying or misrepresenting, etc. Abuse, which is people, well, abusing the system is probably much higher. My gut says it’s huge – in the neighborhood of maybe another 25%.

          Just to clarify, a guy who meets the requirements, applies honestly and accurately, is approved, and then spends his EBT credits on a cruise is absolutely ABUSING the system, but he is not committing fraud (unless there’s some rule out there I don’t know about). Conversely, someone who makes an error on his application, however minor, has technically committed fraud, but I personally wouldn’t count that unless it was material (say an error on income, for example).

          My two cents..

            • I’ll side with the colonel. I was just thinking of all the people I personally know with an EBT card. There are six that I can come up with off hand. All but one of those six, an elderly lady, have asked me at least once to swap cash for use of their card. For what? Alcohol or pills! Uh, no thanks.

              • My wife got an email one time from a Step (thank goodness) family member that was planing on buying a lot of food for a party and saved a lot of money because she bought food stamps from someone .50 cents on the dollar. We cringed and thought, “great supporting another drug addict and buying their food stamps.” (this was less then a year after the step family member’s son died of a drug overdose)

              • As I’ve said, there’s TONS of abuse. How much fraud.. well I don’t know.. but abuse, TONS. With a capital T, that rhymes with B and that stands for BULLSH*T!

                Ok, so now that we’ve established that, and even the liberal agrees that something should be done. What, pray tell, would be your suggestions?

              • This is a tough one because there are plenty of rules and penalties in play as it is. But how about this.. a pre-order system no cash or card involved.

              • Can you elaborate? I whole bunch of things just popped into my head when I read that and I want to see what you’re suggesting.

                If it’s (generally) what I’m thinking, I’ll probably only have a few minor disagreements with you.

              • I tried that several times already and ended up deleting my responses because I figured you’d shoot it down 🙂

                Long story short..a warehouse operation,,staffed by the unemployed..even office staff..order today/pick up tomorrow type thing

              • I’m not necessarily opposed. A lot depends on implementation.

                Anita, I know I’m a liberal, but I think the HELP we’re giving should (A) HELP (B) TEMPORARY and (C) LIMITED TO NECESSITIES. I do not believe your money should be taken from you against your will to make someone comfortable, it should only be a stopgap solution. To that end,

                If they get help paying their rent, it should be wired directly to the landlord.
                If they need help paying their utilities, it should be wired directly to the utilities.
                If they need food, they should be able to buy (or be provided) BASIC foods.
                If they need clothes, they should be able to buy (or be provided) BASIC clothes.
                If they need a cell phone, TOO BAD.
                If they need entertainment, TOO BAD.
                If they need cigarettes and alcohol, TOO BAD.
                If they need medical care, it should be provided at the most basic level (that is, they’ll stitch you up, but no plastic surgery to get rid of the scar, for example) + preventative (only because it’s cheaper to pay upfront than on the back end – this is a utility argument rather than a “we owe them this” argument, which means it’s open to debate)

                Anyone caught in a fraudulent activity should be investigated. If found guilty, jail (hard labor), seizure of any assets to repay and garnishment of future wages until every dime is paid off (plus penalties and interest), and PERMANENT life-long disqualification from receipt or payment of funds. Zero tolerance, and some sort of incentive program to tip off fraud. It should be draconian. This is a moral obligation to help the NEEDY in our society and abuse should not be tolerated.

                And, to the end that it should be TEMPORARY, I think the ability to collect while doing nothing is TERRIBLE. If your choice is couch sitting for $500/mo or working 9-5 for $510/mo, of course a lot of people choose the couch. So make them work. I don’t care what it is, or why, just so long as it sucks. Have them dig a ditch one day and fill it in the next. Have them stock your hypothetical warehouse or man the phone lines or drive the delivery trucks, whatever, it’s all great. Just so long as they don’t get to be comfortable while on the dole. I know it seems cruel, and in a way it is, but a person who is comfortable is never going to change their situation, and who wouldn’t be comfortable getting something for nothing?

                As an added bonus, if they can build up a resume or marketable skills in the process, even better.


                Note, this is all for welfare and UI. Mentally handicapped and (truly) disabled should just get the handouts on the couch.

              • Go Matt!
                Workfare, not welfare. No comforts, no tolerance for abuse, no special circumstances because of who you know. You are living off of other people’s money, every incentive should be given to get off of it. I would go a step further and say that if you pick 510 off the dole versus 500 on it, that you get a little bit of the dole still, like the idea of x level equals poor, say 20k/year. So, you make nothing, you get half that amount, and it is in restricted form. You make 10k you get 5 k. Make it so that the dole is half the poor level, and you get half the distance to the goal depending on what you earn, that incentivises at least a little.

                Now, philosophically, I would like to see no dole at all, but realistically, coming from where we are, I like your reforms. A lot. I think it would go a long way towards cutting fraud and even non-fraud costs of the dole. A lot of people would want off of it.

          • @ Mathius………Ok…..let me think here……Fraud vs abuse……….****puts on Colonel Hat…eagles fluff up a little**** ………****shuffles feet a little, scratches back of head with constantly depleting hair*****……**sips a little DP as Red Bull does not grow hair, it singes the roots**…….

            Ok, after some soul searching and acquiesing that fraud/abuse do not carry the same definition… does not change MY opinion any. My
            simpleton definition is that there is not much difference in fraud vs abuse but will say that by the strict rules of definition….abuse would be the greater percentage. It is very simple to “abuse” the system as well as defraud the system. But understand, sir, that this is MY assumption. But, here is what I have seen on the border.

            1) Mexican Nationals ( non citizens ) coming across the border going into government office buildings, applying for and receiving EBT cards. There is no check and balance.

            2) Gas Stations taking EBT cards. There is no check/balance.

            3) Liquor stores taking EBT cards. There is no check/balance.

            4) Local Stores as Kroger, Tom Thumb, Aldis, etc allowing the purchase of dog food, cigarettes, wine, beer, hardware, and other “staples”. There is no check/balance.

            5) Walmart Supercenters taking EBT cards for total purchases through a food line. Example, a 10x 20 ft camping tent, propane, and cooler, childrens clothes and shoes, There is no check/balance.

            6) the purchasing of EBT cards for cash. There is no check/balance.

            7) My personal favorite………….bingo parlors taking EBT cards for cash value bingo cards.

            These are not excpetions, Mathius…..believe me or not, does not matter….it is what I see on a regular basis on the border and, it is where I hang my hat quite a bit. (The tent and propane and cooler and clothes, I saw personally in Fort Worth, of all places). Really upset my significant other because I then stood and watched for about 30 minutes at a food check out counter and saw how many EBT cards were used and for what.

            I am not a lawyer and do not really care at this point about the difference in terminology. To me, a gas station that takes EBT cards is both abuse and fraudulent so I put the two together. And I submit, that from personal observation, MY interpretation is that it is 50% and maybe greater……There is simply no check and balance.

  44. American Culture with Charles Murray

    I found this very interesting-must get and read this book-Chapter 3 & 5 were the best IMHO

    Have a nice day! 🙂

  45. Just A Citizen says:

    From American Thinker

    Stay at home moms not all ‘rich’: US Census
    Rick Moran

    Do only women married to rich men have the choice to stay at home and raise their children?

    Not according to the US Census data. Buzzfeed:

    The data, though, don’t support the impression that staying at home is a luxury. A detailed 2010 study by two Census Bureau sociologist, in fact, found the opposite: While stay-at-home motherhood has become less common over time, the women who stay at home are increasingly those whose low education means they can’t earn enough money to making working outside the home worthwhile.

    “The main effect showed that compared with 1969, women with less than a high school degres were more likely o be a state-at-home mother than women with a high school degree,” the study’s authors, Rose Kreider and Diana Elliott, wrote, a trend that “accentuated in later decades.”

    “Women with less than a high school degree were even more likely than those with a high school degree to be a stay-at-home mother in later decades than in 1969,” they wrote. “As women gained more education and were able to get better jobs, they did so, and the opportunity cost of staying out of the labor force grew for those with more education. So those with the least education now the most likely to stay out of the labor roces as stay-at home mothers.”

    That’s probably not Ann Romney’s story: Her husband could certainly afford day care, and her education would have allowed her, if she wanted, to work outside the home and pay for it.

    “People think stay-at-home moms are the rich folks,” Romney supporter Penny Nancy said on a conference call with reporters today. The Romney campaign is betting that perception is wrong, and the statistics back them up.

    Obama’s class warfare rhetoric about Romney and his intimating that his wife can afford to stay home because they’re rich doesn’t stand up to the facts.

    • What the woman said isn’t that STAY AT HOME MOTHERS are rich – just that Ann Romney is rich.

      She’s not saying WOMEN don’t know about the concerns about economic issues (“how do we feed our kids” etc), she’s saying ANN ROMNEY has never had these concerns.

      She did say that she’s never worked a day in her life (something I militantly disagree with) because being a stay-at-home mother IS, absolutely, a job. It’s just not a job in the marketplace, external, paid, you-can-be-fired, bring-home-the-bacon sense of the word. Now, putting words in her mouth, I suspect that might be what she meant, but it’s certainly not what she said.

      Now, for reference, my own mother was a stay-at-home mother. But she had nannies and maids and whatnot and did almost none of the work of raising a family or keeping a house. She “never worked a day in her life.” I don’t know Ann Romney at all, but I imagine this is almost certainly not the case. But it’s also somewhat irrelevant. The argument she was trying to make was that Romney is getting his economic indicators (at least as a rhetorical device in his speeches) from his wife, and his wife has not had to deal with the economic situation of many other women. As such, she (and therefore he) doesn’t necessarily really understand what “women are concerned about” in general.

      Now I, for one, consider this all to be BS. You can know perfectly well that women are concerned about the economy without being personally concerned about how you’re going to feed your family. It’s a bland, stupid, tact to try to paint Romney as out-of-touch with the common voter and their plight (and, to be fair, in many ways he does seem to be, though this is not unique necessarily to Romney).

      Obama’s class warfare rhetoric about Romney and his intimating that his wife can afford to stay home because they’re rich doesn’t stand up to the facts.

      So, to sum up, she wasn’t intimating the Ann Romney’s wife can say home because she’s rich. She was (A) directly stating that fact, then (B) using that to draw a flimsy accusation that she’s (and therefore he) is out-of-touch.

      But there really wasn’t any attack on women in general or at large, or at stay-at-home mothers at large. At least not as I listened to it. As I interpreted it, though, it was pure class-warfare against the rich: They’re so rich, they have no idea what you’re going through. That was the message. I think this woman should called out over this, yes, but I think she’s being called out for the wrong thing because it’s the narrative the RIGHT wants to hear, because it’s hard to defend the super rich against accusations that they’re out-of-touch due to their richness and it doesn’t generate the sympathy or the outcry as an attack on “mothers” does.

      It was just another dime-a-dozen attacks against Romney for nothing other than the crime of being rich.

      In my humble opinion, of course.

      • Romney also said that Ann was reporting to him what other women were saying. Ann is on the campaign trail and has been for a year. Hence she hears the concerns of many. She is the conduit back to Mitt for these concerns. This is no different than what Eleanor Roosevelt did for FDR or what many other First Ladies and wannabes have done for their husbands. The Dems deserve all the flak they are getting on this one.

        • General agreement. Though, again, I think the flack should be for what she actually did wrong. That is, attacking Ann Romney as out of touch, just because she’s rich. They’re playing this up like she attacked all stay-at-home mothers and that simply isn’t the case.

      • Matt, I am wonderring what it takes to earn respct? At least enough respect to not be publically disrespected? Starting out in a crappy appartment while raising your first child? Doesn’t play well to how rich and out of touch they must be… Breast cancer? Skip that, lets talk about their horses….skip that she has MS and that is her physical thearpy….. She is being attacked because her husband is running for president. Were she anybody else, she would be praised for her accomplishments.

        The couple’s first son was born in 1970[12] while both were undergraduates at Brigham Young,[15] living in a $75-a-month basement apartment,[16] which Mitt had transferred to based upon her request.[13] After he graduated, the couple moved to Boston so that he could attend Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School. Slowed down by parenthood, she later finished her undergraduate work by gaining a semester and half’s worth of credits via taking night courses at Harvard University Extension School,[15] from which she graduated in 1975[1] with a Bachelor of Liberal Arts degree with a concentration in French language.[17]

        A stay-at-home mother,[18] Romney raised the family’s five boys (born between 1970 and 1981)[12] and taught early morning scripture classes to them and other children[18] while her husband pursued his career, first in business, then in politics.[19] According to one analyst, her personality as a political wife was viewed as superficial and was a detrimental factor in her husband’s eventually losing effort in the 1994 U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts.[18] In one instance during the campaign she was ridiculed for saying that she and her husband had never had a serious argument during their married years.[20].
        [edit] Multiple sclerosis and riding

        During 1997, Ann Romney began experiencing severe numbness, fatigue, and other symptoms,[12] and just before Thanksgiving in 1998, she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis.[15][19] Mitt Romney described watching her fail a series of neurological tests as the worst day of his life.[12] He later said: “I couldn’t operate without Ann. We’re a partnership. We’ve always been a partnership so her being healthy and our being able to be together is essential.”[15] She initially experienced a period of severe difficulty with the disease,[1] and later said: “I was very sick in 1998 when I was diagnosed. I was pretty desperate, pretty frightened and very, very sick. It was tough at the beginning, just to think, this is how I’m going to feel for the rest of my life.”[21] Since then, she credits a mixture of mainstream and alternative treatments with giving her a lifestyle mostly without limitations.[1] She initially used corticosteroids, including intravenously, and credited them with helping stop the progression of the disease.[21] She then dropped them and other medications due to counterproductive side effects.[18] She has partaken of reflexology, acupuncture, and craniosacral therapy, and has said, “There is huge merit in both Eastern and Western medicine, and I’ve taken a little bit from both.”[21] She is a board member for the New England chapter of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society,[17] and has been given the MS Society’s Annual Hope Award.[11]

        • What’s your point? I already said that it was a specious attack.

          All I’m arguing is that the woman who made it is being attacked for the wrong thing. She’s being accused of attacking “women” on behalf of all Democrats (somehow she speaks for all of them?). What she did is to attack Ann Romney for being out of touch on the grounds that she’s rich. That, as I’ve said, is a stupid thing to say/do.

          • My point? Do I have to have one? My right to ramble is protected by the 1st somethig on other….
            Lets see, a CNN commentator using her position to make personal attacks agains a woman who happens to be wealthy… Said commentator is wealthy, by most standards, made a couple mil just working for the record industry, (hypocrisy anyone)… she is a gay activist (double standard anyone?) It’s OK for a lesbian to go after a straight woman, but pitty the straight that says anything non-PC about a lesbian……

            Post-RIAA career

            On January 22, 2003, Rosen announced that she would resign as head of the RIAA at the end of 2003, in order to spend more time with her partner, Elizabeth Birch, and the the twins they adopted in 1999 (a boy and a girl). Birch was then the executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, which is the nation’s largest LGBT organization.[3]

            Rosen is herself a lesbian[4] and in 2004, briefly served as interim director for the Human Rights Campaign.[5] Her partner Elizabeth Birch had been the executive director of HRC for eight years prior. Rosen and Birch separated in 2006.

            In 2006, Rosen founded Berman Rosen Global Strategies, a short-lived consulting firm, with Jason Berman, Chairman of the International Recording Industry Association. In 2007, she launched, a site targeted to lesbians and fans of the television series The L Word.[6] This site subsequently merged with[7] She began working for the Brunswick Group, a London-based PR firm, in 2008.[8]

            Rosen began a television commentator career first with CNBC and then with MSNBC. She signed with CNN in early 2008. She was formerly Washington Editor at Large for The Huffington Post and was the site’s political director during the 2008 election.

            Rosen left the Brunswick Group to join the political communications firm, SKDKnickerbocker in 2010.[9]

            • Is your point that she’s a hypocrite for being “well off” and going after “super-mega rich” Romney for being rich? I don’t see it. Doesn’t make her right… just not a hypocrite.

              As for being gay, I don’t see the connection. She wasn’t saying it’s evil to be rich. Or that God hates rich people (though Jesus did). Or that it’s a sin to be rich. Or that rich people are subhuman. Or that rich people should be able to get married. Or that rich people shouldn’t be able to serve in the military. She said that they are out of touch. Which, as far as I know, is generally not a charge leveled at the gay community. So, again, this doesn’t make her right, but I’m just not seeing the hypocrisy.

              • Where does a multi-millionair get off stating a mother of five can’t relate to other mothers?“never actually worked a day in her life” and implied she could not relate to the plight of mothers who did not have “means.” As posted above, the Romneys did not start out weathly. And how about a lesbian who adopts thinking she has standing to critize a woman who gave birth to her children. How can she relate to actual biological mothers with her trouser snake phobia???

                Prior to her recent assault on Ann Romney, Hilary Rosen led the war on Napster in 2002.

                Publicly available tax documents from 2002, obtained by TheDC, reveal that Rosen received a total compensation package of $2.8 million during her final year as CEO and President of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

                Rosen earned a salary of $2.65 million dollars for 40 hours of work per week to head the Washington lobby group. In addition, she received $141,512 in contributions to her benefits package from the RIAA that year as well.

                Rosen led the Washington lobby group when it sued music file-sharing service Napster in 1999 – 2001 for its facilitation of music copyright infringement. She left the RIAA in 2003.

                A frequent Obama White House visitor, Rosen was on the receiving end of a firestorm of criticism Wednesday and Thursday for her remarks about Ann Romney, the spouse of presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney. Rosen said Ann Romney had “never actually worked a day in her life” and implied she could not relate to the plight of mothers who did not have “means.”

                Read more:

              • I didn’t realize she had that much money. Yes. The hypocrisy charge is good.

                Never mind.

              • Hey! Jesus didn’t hate rich people he merely explained how hard it is to lead a “good” life with the temptations being rich throws in your path. The wife and I were just discussing this at breakfast., Just because you give a million to a hospital, charity or church does not make you a good person. It’s what you do with the rest of your time, like shutting down a small factory on Monday in Spartenberg because you can produce a widget $ .02 cheaper in China. Now there is a moral call there. If the $ .02 extra expense is the difference between life and death for your company that’s one thing. If it is the difference between a $ .20 rise in the stock dividend and your concurrent $ 10,000,000 bonus so you can give that million to charity, that is quite another.

                Years ago, I played with the chicken/ egg argument as follows. If one of my neighborhood drug lords in NYC came to me with the proposition to build low income housing with the proceeds from his business would I run the show? Admittedly dirty money being laundered but for an immediate good cause. End justifying means? Interesting question in where it leads.

              • SK,

                Re Jesus: Correct, Jesus didn’t hate the rich. In fact, as I understood it, Jesus didn’t hate anyone. Jesus was all about love. Love thy neighbor. Love thy fellow man. Love they attacker. Etc. Jesus was basically a flower child. I didn’t mean that as a factual statement 😉 But the point does stand that, in the eyes of Jesus, most rich people tend not to be good people (camel through the eye of a needle..). Jesus didn’t think the wealthy honored their obligation to help their fellow man – that, not the richness in-and-of-itself, was the “evil” of rich people. He felt that there was a moral obligation that everyone should help the less fortunate to the best of their ability and if you were living the high-life while others were starving, then you were being immoral.

                Re making things in another country for $0.02 less: First of all, people in China need work too. Remember, Chinese people are still people, and there’s nothing morally superior about employing Americans than anyone else. Further, raising stock prices means that investors have more money which means that investors invest more money which means, wait for it.. wait for it.. more jobs. The $10mm bonus seems large, but doesn’t a man have a right to pay himself what he thinks he’s worth in his own company? And that money doesn’t simply vanish off the face of the earth after he pays himself. It goes to taxes, it goes into other investments, it goes into a bank account. And when it’s in a bank account, the bank lends it out and it creates more opportunity. When the bank writes a mortgage or a start-up loan, where do you think they got that money? If businesses stopped being greedy, the whole economy would fall off a cliff and everyone would be worse off.

                The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed — for lack of a better word — is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms — greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge — has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed — you mark my words — will not only save that widget company, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA.

                Re chicken/egg: Yes, in a heart beat. If I could find a way to channel bad money into a good cause, I’d absolutely do it. But money, itself, is neither good nor bad – it’s a tool. It’s all in how you use it. By the way, I’m still not sure why we’re considering drug lord money to be bad or ill gotten. Seems to me that selling drugs to a willing buyer is free enterprise. It’s just people going where the invisible hand points. Isn’t that what all you conservatives are all about?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I agree with most of what you posted. But you need to understand there is a HISTORY on this issue with the hardliners in the Dem Party.

        It goes back to NOW denigrating stay at home mom’s back in the beginning. Then time to time you get some woman in the Dem Party leadership or NOW leadership (same thing) speaking their true views.

        Hillary Clinton herself made this gaff years ago.

        So it is predictable that the R’s jump on this to “remind” women that those running the Dem Party still have little TRUE regard for stay at home Mom’s.

        Now the question is whether the R’s will recognize the risk of sticking with this or making the move to the Class Warfare issue.

        I just love this “they can’t relate to us” meme. Since when have Americans wanted to elect the guy down the street to POTUS? You know, those people you describe in your “Average American” opinion.

        Especially given the Dem Party members love affair with the “intelligent” and “well educated”. The hypocrisy of crying out for the need for more “intellectuals” then make fun of an intellectual and successful person for “not being the same as us”.

        • Since when have Americans wanted to elect the guy down the street to POTUS? You know, those people you describe in your “Average American” opinion.


          We all know how I feel about the “average” American. We all remember what happened when people picked the guy they’re “rather have a beer with,” never mind that that sentence ended in a preposition.

          I want an elitist. Nobody is actually smart enough to be a perfect Present. Not even me. But I sure as hell don’t want Joe Schmo. I wan the guy who was able to get into and complete a high level of education at a prestigious college. I want the guy who was wildly successful in his chosen career. I don’t want the guy bagging groceries. I never understood why other people seem to. The guy bagging groceries is bagging groceries because he’s lazy or unintelligent or BOTH. You do not want him running your country and holding the nuclear launch keys.

          If I were Romney, I would probably get killed, but this would be my pitch: “I’m not like you. I’m rich and I’m powerful because I’m smart and I work hard. I will be a good President because I am smart and I work hard. You know who else is smart and works hard? Barack Obama. But my views are more closely aligned with you. He and I are both rich elitists. We are not like you. We understand your plight in academic terms but if we’ve ever experienced adversity, it was so long ago, it’s now a faded memory. We’re both good people who love our country and the only thing that differs is our view of what’s best for that country. I’m more Conservative, he’s more Liberal. Vote accordingly.”

          • Just A Citizen says:


            One correction for your speech.

            I love our country but Mr. Obama loves himself.

          • SK Trynosky Sr says:

            Bill Buckley once said that he’s rather be governed by the first 535 names in the Boston telephone directory rather than congress. Can’t really say I’d disagree.

            • SK,

              Buckley did say that.

              I think though, Buckley was talking about the morality of the elected officials, not their perceived elitism. Buckley, remember, was an academic. he was an intellectual. He was a conservative in a much richer vein than the empty shell of bumper-sticker politics we see today. I think, if he were alive today to ask, he would clarify that he doesn’t want average INTELLIGENCE in Washington, but average MORALITY.

        • Especially given the Dem Party members love affair with the “intelligent” and “well educated”. The hypocrisy of crying out for the need for more “intellectuals” then make fun of an intellectual and successful person for “not being the same as us”.


      • LOL…gotta hand it to you Mathius,……I think it would be fun to tip a few……….

        “In my humble opinion, of course”, says sir Mathius………….D13 muses that the opinions of Mathius AND D13 are about as humbe as a runaway freight train…on steroids. And, I would further surmise, our opinions become more humble direct proportion of RB and DP consumed.

        I luv ya man……….. 🙂

  46. Just A Citizen says:

    I watched Democrat Bob Boekel yesterday attacking Republicans on their “disdain” or “lack of concern” for women.

    The basis of his logic is quite revealing. In his mind the “proof” of the Republican view is evidenced by their lack of support for various welfare programs. This includes CHIP, Son of CHIP, and Head Start.

    So once you accept that FREE COOKIES is the criteria for “concern” it becomes much easier to understand how those opposing FREE COOKIES are “waging a war against women”.

    Now for those here who think this is ridiculous let me remind you of polling data going back many years that show “women” support Federal Welfare programs in far larger numbers than men. They are far more likely to believe in the “tribe” vs. “individual”. You remember that “it takes a community to raise a child” comment?

    I raise this today because it is a major source of the differences in primary political views in our country. As long as 50% of our population believes in the basic ethic supporting “socialism” we will have a sever challenge in protecting individual freedom, liberty and justice for all.

    Best of Wishes to All, this fine Friday.

  47. President Obama and his wife, Michele, gave a total of $48,000 in tax-free gifts to their daughters, according to tax records made public on Friday.

    The president and his wife separately gave each daughter a $12,000 gift under a section of the federal tax code that exempts such donations from federal taxes.

    There is nothing illegal about the president’s taking advantage of this tax shelter, but it does raise eyebrows given that he has lamented the myriad tax exemptions used by the wealthy—“millionaires and billionaires” like himself—to pay less in taxes. He has yet to propose a comprehensive plan to reform the byzantine tax code.

    The Obama’s tax return indicates that the gifts, likely for their daughter’s college educations, began in 2007, when the maximum exemptible amount was $24,000 per couple. The maximum exemption has since increased to $26,000 per couple.

    The Obamas paid a total federal tax rate of 20.5 percent on a gross adjusted income $789,674, which would typically fall within the top federal rate of 35 percent. According to an analysis of the president’s tax return, he may have paid a lower rate than his secretary despite making more than eight times as much money as she did.

    His most recent tax proposal—the so-called “Buffett Rule”—would increase taxes on about 4,000 millionaires and raise about $4.7 billion in new revenue per year, enough to cover about 0.4 percent of the projected budget deficit in 2012. Though the rule would apparently not hit the president himself.

    Supporters of the rule have acknowledged that the projected revenue from the “Buffett Rule,” which the Democratic-led Senate is expected to vote down, is “not even a meaningful small amount.”

    The Obama’s untaxed gift to their daughters will leave American taxpayers to subsidize the college education of the children of the multi-millionaire Obamas.

    • First of all, it’s not a tax shelter per say. The money is post-tax and counts as income on the way in. Obama paid full taxes on it.

      What this does is avoid the estate taxes if/when he transfers the money upon his death since the money is already in her name.

      I assure you this is very standard practice (something I intend to start doing as of late June, early July), not just amongst the super rich. You’re allowed one 13k transfer per person-person (so I can give 13k to my daughter and my wife can also give 13k to my daughter = 26k / yr).

      None of this, to my knowledge, is in any way related to the Buffet Rule.

      • It is not… is just a tax free gift.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        No need to wait until your daughter is born – you can do it now.

        And yes, this is very standard practice.

        • Standard Practice, yes. But awful hypocritical from the man that thinks the rich should not be allowed to find ways to shelter their money from taxes. Remember, he advocates a higher estate tax, and it seems as though most on the left agree with this stance under the premise that the children didn’t earn it. How can you have that stance while simultaneously stashing away cash to avoid the estate tax?

          I noticed as well that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary. Another interesting aspect from the man who made that very observation in a speech condemning the rich.

          I understand that he has broken no laws. But that folks on the left refuse to see the utter hypocrisy is beyond me.

  48. Dear Mr President…..I am confused so perhaps you could straighten me out…..You have shut off oil exploration on Federal land and you have shut off new drilling in coastal waters… have given billions to alternative energy research and companies that immediately went bankrupt whle paying themselves huge bonuses and hefty campaign contributions to you………BUT…….please explain to me that if you are so hot on green technology and so against oil……why have you given four billions to Brazil for their oil production and then pledged to buy their oil production but lambast foreign oil dependency? Can you explain this other than your head up your ass?

    • Might want to ask also if coal is so nasty and is causing global warming, why is it OK to burn everywhere else? Unless they are burning it on another globe, doesn’t it still affect us?

      BILLINGS, Mont. — U.S. coal exports reached their highest level in two decades last year as strong demand from Asia and Europe offered an outlet for a fuel that is falling from favor at home.

      U.S. Department of Energy data analyzed by The Associated Press reveal that coal exports topped 107 million tons of fuel worth almost $16 billion in 2011. That’s the highest level since 1991, and more than double the export volume from 2006.

      Much of the increase went to slake the thirst of power-hungry markets in Asia, where rapid development has sparked what mining company Peabody Energy calls a “global coal super cycle” that heralds renewed interest in the fuel.

      The AP’s analysis showed coal exports to South Korea leapt 81 percent last year to more than 10 million tons. India saw a 65 percent jump, to 4.5 million tons. And Japan bought almost 7 million tons — a 119 percent increase — as the nation sought alternatives to nuclear power after an earthquake and tsunami prompted the Fukushima nuclear complex meltdown.

      King Coal faces a tougher outlook in the U.S., where competition from cheap natural gas and costly new rules for power plants are eroding its historic dominance in electricity generation.

      Coal’s share of the domestic power supply has fallen by more than 20 percent in the past several years, forcing companies to search out new customers or risk having to cut production from U.S. mines that produced almost 1.1 billion tons last year.

      Government projections released Tuesday said domestic power sector demand for coal is projected to dip by another 10 percent in 2012. That would drive total U.S. coal use below a billion tons this year for only the second time since 1995.

      Utilities burn almost all of the coal consumed in the U.S. to produce electricity.

      “There’s no question that our supplies of coal are adequate. The question is, how do we find new markets for coal to keep the share of electricity generation strong?” said Luke Popovich with the National Mining Association. “While its use is relatively declining here, it is absolutely soaring in most other places.”

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Liberals all need to DIE! Except those who can realize how damn stupid they are, and of couse our resident crew could stay with us for entertainment.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Hitting the Tomato brandy a little hard this evening are you?

        I am here to challenge you to a bet my Pennsylvanian friend. Anything you want.

        I bet there WILL be a Presidential Election this year, right on schedule.

        What say you?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I Say, as I have for quite some time now, that there will not be a November election (for president). Your challenge is accepted! I really don’t want anything, at least not of real value, as a part of any wager. I am not wealthy (financially), but I don’t require that form of fake lifestyle. However, I will offer to you, as my part of a wager, 6 bottles of any flavor of my homemade brandy, of which i will ship to you if you win! If I win, what will you offer?

      • C’Mon G… How is this helping me to keep discussions somewhat civil here at SUFA. I understand your passion, but we shouldn’t be wanting anyone to die.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          USW, I really don’t want anyone to die, well maybe….. nevermind hehee. 🙂

  49. La vita è Bella

    By Quin Hillyer on 4.13.12 @ 6:09AM

    A Penny for our thoughts.

    It didn’t help that we had responded to Penny’s diagnosis so differently. Two days after our return from the hospital, Peter finished grieving and he walked outside and never looked back. Penny was his beautiful daughter, and that was that. I trusted him — he had immersed himself in grief and had emerged ready to receive our daughter. He didn’t worry about her future. He didn’t wrestle with the theological questions surrounding Down syndrome. He just loved her.

    I wasn’t there yet. I felt too fragile….
    — From A Good and Perfect Gift: Faith, Expectations, and a Little Girl Named Penny, by Amy Julia Becker

    It was in a forum on Nov. 19 of last year. For seven minutes and 38 seconds, Rick Santorum spoke about the health struggles of his daughter Bella, and his response thereto. The most stunning line was this, after saying that for the first five months of her life he had tried to be “the rock” for his family, the one who didn’t break down and show too much sorrow or grief. But he wasn’t really a rock, he said:

    “It was a lie. I decided to not love her like I did because it wouldn’t hurt as much if I lost her…. I had seen her as less of a person because of her disability.” But then, he realized as he held her little finger after she had been resuscitated from a situation where she had completely stopped breathing, he realized his pose was a façade: He loved her fiercely, desperately.

    One cannot watch that video and not like Rick Santorum. Similarly, the 3:38 video on Bella on his campaign website is too raw, too honest, to have been scripted, and it is quite moving and inspirational.

    “Bella makes us better,” he said. “Some people describe people like Bella as ‘disabled children,’ and I look at her and I look at the joy and the simplicity and the love that she emits, and it’s clear to me that we’re the disabled ones, not her; she’s got it right. She’s got a great and beautiful spirit — one that emits unconditional love, and we can learn a lot from that.”

    While Santorum was still campaigning for president, it didn’t seem appropriate to write much about his special-needs daughter, for fear it would look like making her a campaign issue. But as he spoke at appropriate times and places about her, it was striking to see how often he said things very similar to what Amy Julia Becker wrote in A Good and Perfect Gift, quoted above. Becker’s daughter Penny has Down syndrome, or Trisomy 21, which involves an extra 21st chromosome; Bella Santorum has Trisomy 18, also known as Edwards Syndrome, which involves extra material on the 18th chromosome. The two ailments are similar, except that Trisomy 18 is associated with more severe, indeed more life-threatening, medical complications.

    Becker’s book is a remarkably candid, wonderfully moving memoir of events during the first two years of Penny’s life. It carries no political agenda, so it merits a light touch when its material is used in the context of a political candidate such as Santorum — but the points to be made here are not political at all, but rather cultural and humane.

    Pre-echoing Santorum’s comment about Bella making us better and offering a gift rather than being a burden, Becker wrote (in a letter to her daughter): “When you were first born, I was worried, I didn’t know much about Down syndrome, and I was afraid. I’m not worried anymore. I am proud of you — our smart, funny, beautiful, delightful daughter. Thank you for being in our lives.”

    What is striking is how often even the most well-meaning of Becker’s acquaintances say things about Penny that made Penny sound like a terrible burden rather than a joy. Especially frustrating were the times medical professionals seemed to assume that a baby with Down would be a baby not worth having. They also, rather insistently, pressured Becker to have various forms of pre-natal testing when she again became pregnant. Becker’s observations tracked closely with what Santorum said in a famously contentious interview with the clueless Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation.

    Here’s what Santorum said: “We’re talking about specifically prenatal testing and specifically amniocentesis, which is a… procedure that creates a risk of miscarriage when you have it and is done for the purpose of identifying maladies of a child in the womb, which in many cases, in fact, most cases, physicians recommend, particularly if there’s a problem, recommend abortion.”

    Here are extended passages from Becker’s lovely book:

    I turned on NPR as I drove home, and the story was about a new ethics recommendation from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (“ACOG”). It stated that doctors unwilling to provide abortions had an obligation to refer their patients to another physician who would provide the procedure. In the words of the spokesperson on NPR, “If a physician has a personal belief that deviates from evidence-based standards of care… they have a duty to refer patients in a timely fashion if they do not feel comfortable providing a given service.” I thought about all the women who were offered prenatal tests to screen for Down syndrome. And I had to wonder how much those tests were really offered care for those women, for those babies. I knew that new medical guidelines — evidence-based standards of care — suggested that all pregnant women, regardless of age, be screened for Trisomy 21. And I knew that studies showed that women who received a prenatal diagnosis of Trisomy 21 terminated their pregnancies the vast majority of the time. Evidence-based standards of care resulted, more often than not, in the elimination of people like Penny from our society. I felt the anger surge. The report came across as so factual, so neutral. But I knew from talking to friends who had children with Down syndrome that the information about that extra chromosome was rarely delivered in a neutral manner….

    ACOG had pitted “personal beliefs” against evidence, as if a physician who was unwilling to perform an abortion had defied the evidence about how to care for this woman, this child…. “Evidence-based standards of care” included all the physical problems Penny could face, but not the joy she could bring or the abilities she might have…. “Evidence-based standards of care” didn’t include the reality that all of life is fragile and uncertain, with potential for heartbreak and potential for great delight.

    Before the actual text of the book, the publisher printed a series of questions and answers with Becker. One was about pre-natal testing. Here’s what Becker answered:

    Although I was shocked when we discovered Penny had Down syndrome, I was grateful we hadn’t known in utero. We had been able to prepare for our child, not for a diagnosis. In addition, we were wary of participating in the prenatal screening industry. Although many individual women use prenatal screening as a way to prepare for the birth of their child, the industry as a whole perpetuates bias against children with disabilities. I didn’t want to participate in a cultural assumption that certain children are more “worthy” of life than others.

    And, later:

    If I had the power to change anything, it would be to change the way people perceive individuals with Down syndrome. I’d change media outlets that report on people “suffering” from Down syndrome. I’d change celebrities who use the word “retarded” as a joke. I’d change doctors who think of Down syndrome as a condition that makes life not worth living. I’d change our culture to make it more welcoming. But I wouldn’t change Penny.

    At its heart, this is not about politics. It’s about families, and human decency, and human potential, and the preciousness of human life. As Santorum said of the choice his family faced when Bella was born, “We’re gonna not focus on her dying; we’re going to focus on her living. And she’s been a wonderful, joyful, center of the universe, if you will, for our family for the past three years.”

    And here is Amy Julia Becker: “Every day I become more and more clear that Penny is not a ‘Downs kid.’ Penny is a child with wonderful and fascinating aspects to her personality. Penny is a child who knows and loves her family, who has a big vocabulary and loves books, who blows kisses to anyone who says hello, who is learning to climb stairs, and, oh, yes, Penny is also a child who has Down syndrome.”

    This is what is missing from so much cultural commentary today — not just about children born with maladies, but in so many aspects of life — what is missing from the way so many of us look at the world: What is missing is the sense of individuals as individuals, not as part of some larger group category. We, or the cultural elites, make assumptions about people based on absurdly broad categories — stay-at-home moms as “not working”; Evangelicals as mindless “Bible thumpers”; black people as victims needing a handout; southerners as uneducated; middle Americans as “clinging to God and guns”; or (to explode a conservative prejudice against East Coasters) Wall Street denizens as effete, brie-eating snobs — that we fail to even harbor the slightest notion that they, we, all of us have individual thoughts, individual dreams, individual strengths, and individual worth.

    We have individual worth as human beings. We have individual worth as children of other men and women who themselves are individuals. We have individual worth, mostly, as children of God.

    That status, alone, is a good and perfect gift.

  50. gmanfortruth says:

    Wonderful day! Potatoes and carrots are planted. Watched a big gobbler for hours today tryng to get some turkey trim, LOL. THey sure are neat when they strut all fanned out. 🙂

%d bloggers like this: