Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Tolerance, Killing, Judicial Stupidity & Brotherly Love

G.K. Chesterton once said, "Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions."  I think my blog has a new motto.

Once again I've come to the point that I've had enough and I need to blow off some steam here on my little corner of the internet.  It seems that's how it goes...I see and hear and read things over time until the point that I've just had it, and I'm either going to go batshit crazy, resign myself to the idea that America is doomed, or furiously attack my keyboard.

Aren't you glad I usually choose option "C"?

Before I start ranting, I'm going to take a minute to shamelessly plug the latest in a series of books by one of my favorite authors, Vince Flynn.  Kill Shot was released today and is a prequel to all but one of the other books in the series of thrillers featuring Mitch Rapp, the country's most lethal terrorist hunter.  In fact, he is SO bad-ass that while the bogeyman checks under his bed for Chuck Norris, Chuck Norris checks under his bed for Mitch Rapp. For readers that were fans of the Fox series "24", Vince Flynn's books are right up your alley.  I can't wait to start reading it on my NOOK tonight.  (Yeah, another shameless plug.)

OK, back to business. The tipping point for me this afternoon was learning that the Obama administration has appointed an official advocate for illegal aliens.  Evidently, this person will be the point of contact for "concerns, questions, recommendations or other issues" that illegals or their buddies (community organizers) here in the United States wish to express.  This position reports up through U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security.

That's right, folks.  The Department of Homeland Security has a sympathetic ear for criminals that breach the security of our homeland by crossing our borders illegally.

Seriously?  Why don't we just give them a big fat wad of cash and a pamphlet showing how to obtain every taxpayer-funded benefit available to them as we welcome them across the border?

It's not enough that the Obama administration has ordered DHS and ICE to stop deporting illegals unless they have some ridiculously heinous track record of violent crime.  Now, our tax dollars are being used to pay the salary of some schmuck that is an official advocate for foreign criminals on American soil. That just pisses me off.  What's next...a free ticket to America and an advocate for terrorists at Guantanamo?

We have GOT to get rid of this pinhead in the Oval Office come November.  Then, we need to get rid of every other idiot politician sympathetic to illegal alien lawbreaking scum.

Next, from the Hate America wing of the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government...we have Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal activist justice on the United States Supreme Court, telling a crowd of Egyptians that they shouldn't use the U.S. Constitution as a model as they work towards forming a new government.  Rather, she says, they should have a look at the constitution of South Africa...or basically any other nation formed after WWII.

Only mildly offensive to most Americans, on its surface.  But the kicker is her reasoning.  Essentially, she bemoans our founding document because it is so old, behind the times, and inflexible.  While she didn't say it, she undoubtedly believes - as does the New York Times - that the Constitution should guarantee the right to food, health care, and education.

Now folks, the Supreme Court is the highest authority in the land, responsible for determining whether laws passed by legislative machinery at all levels of government throughout the country are, in fact, Constitutional.  The justices are supposed to be experts on the subject of the Constitution, which you cannot be without also having read the Federalist Papers.  These papers are a collection of letters and notes written by the founding fathers as they were going through the process of drafting our Constitution.

Many people believe the founding fathers - Jefferson in particular - were adamant that the Constitution was not intended to be subject to evolving interpretation.  There was debate and disagreement among them, but in the end that is why parts of the Constitution were left vague and a mechanism for its amendment exists.  It is only considered "inflexible" and "behind the times" by those who oppose it's principles - or advocate ideas that would never pass muster with We the People.

Hell, even Obama acknowledges it.  This weekend, he said, "Our founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes."  For once, Obama said something smart that I agree with.  The Constitution was written that way and made hard to change by design.

Justice Ginsburg would do well to appear less foolish while representing the United States abroad.

Moving right along...this from the Department of It's Only Racist if You're White...the City of Brotherly Love has been anything but over the past few months.  One of the latest stories about the violence in Philadelphia involves a group of ten black teenagers who swarmed a taxi stopped at a red light and brutally beat the white driver and white passenger.

Seems that the thugs won't be facing "hate crime" charges.  Unfortunately, I have NO doubt in my mind that if the races were reversed in this story, it would be the hate crime of the century, complete with marches by community organizers, Black Panthers, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and all the other race hustlers we hear about in the news these days.

We'd hear Obama talk about how the taxi driver "stupidly" drove into the wrong neighborhood, and then we'd never hear from those ten racist white thugs until they were up for parole in twenty years.

I guess you have to be a "brotha" for it to be the City of Brotherly Love.

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Voter ID: Why do Democrats Resist?

Today I got an email from the State Representative, Rafael Anchia (D-Dallas) that represented the district where I used to live.  It was a pretty simple email, notifying "Constituents and "Friends of District 103" that the Democrat party needed something from them.

I haven't lived in his district for a couple of years, and this is the first email I can recall getting from him since I moved.  Kind of like those "friends" you never hear from unless they want something.

Anyway, below is the text of his email, the subject of which was simply "Texas Voter ID Lawsuit":

Dear Constituents and Friends of District 103:

The Texas House Democratic Campaign Committee is seeking voters willing to be named as intervenors in the voter ID lawsuit who fit the following criteria:

1. The voter is Hispanic, African American or Asian (i.e. groups protected under the Voting Rights Act);
2. The voter does not have any of the forms of ID that would be available under the voter ID bill. 
  • Driver’s license, election identification certificate, personal identification card, or concealed handgun license issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety;
  • United States Military identification card containing the person’s photograph;
  • United States citizenship certificate containing the person’s photograph; or
  • United States passport.
  • With the exception of the U.S. citizenship certificate, the identification must be current or have expired no more than 60 days before being presented for voter qualification at the polling place.
3. The voter would have trouble obtaining the free Election Identification Certificate for some reason (doesn't have necessary documents, too far to travel, etc.);
4. The voter is willing to testify to that effect (their testimony would likely be taken in the town where they live, not DC)

If you know of any individuals who meet the above-referenced criteria, please contact Cliff Walker, Executive Director, of the Texas House Democratic Campaign Committee at (512) 473-2004 or at cliff@texashdcc.com.  Thank you for your time on this important issue.
Rafael Anchia
State Representative
District 103

It's not hard to figure out which part of this letter I was reading that first pissed me off.

And, somehow I was not up to speed on the issue of voter ID in Texas, so I had to do some homework to get caught up.

Last year, the Texas Legislature passed a bill requiring that voters show an acceptable form of government-issued identification in order to cast a vote at a polling place in the Lone Star State.

However, the bill cannot be enacted without approval known as "pre-clearance" from the federal government's Department of Injustice.  You see, about 100 years ago, Texas and various other states had some problems with voter discrimination.  So the feds - by way of the Voting Rights Act - insist on reviewing and providing final approval of anything we and these other states do that would have any impact to elections.

Six months later the Department of Injustice still has Texas' bill on its desk, in no hurry to provide the required approvals despite the bill specifically indicating that it was to be enacted in time for the Texas primaries.  It's no secret that the feds don't like Texas and Texas doesn't like the feds, so the delay isn't much of a surprise.

After having run out of patience, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott filed a lawsuit against the federal government a few days ago to light a fire under the feds' asses so the bill would be approved.  And, based on this email from Rep. Anchia, opponents of the voter ID bill are gearing up for a fight.

Democrats whine that the voter ID requirement would be de facto discrimination against a large part of their voter base - minorities - because they are disproportionately poor and less likely to have the required identification than other groups, while Republicans (and other rational, intelligent people) know that a voter ID requirement is necessary to minimize voter fraud.

State Rep. Dawanna Dukes (D-Austin), one of Anchia's Democrat buddies, was eager to display her stupidity for all to see when she smugly declared that the burden is on the state of Texas to prove that requiring ID to vote isn't discriminatory.  Apparently she is indeed a minority, because the majority of people know you can't prove a negative.

Further, the United States Supreme Court has recently dismissed the Democrats' weak argument against voter ID laws in Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 07-21 (2008), saying, "The inconvenience of making a trip to the [Bureau of Motor Vehicles], gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph surely does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.".  (It's even easier than that here in Texas).  

But let's pretend for a second that there is something to the Dems' argument that requiring ID creates an undue burden on the poor.  Why does Anchia's Democrat party only want to hear from minorities as stated in criteria #1 in his letter above?  Can someone please explain to me how OTC's (Other Than Caucasians) are somehow MORE burdened than an equally poor Caucasian person would be?  Is it somehow MORE difficult for OTC's to obtain identification than it is for Caucasians?

Of course not.

So then, why IS it that Democrats fight so hard against voter ID laws every time a state proposes one?

The only plausible explanation is that they depend heavily on dead people, illegal aliens, and people that don't exist (voter fraud) to have any chance at winning elections.