Florida’s Scott to Challenge DOJ on State’s Purge of Illegal Voters

/4 Comments/in /by

The Department of Justice appears to be headed for a showdown with Florida over its effort to seek out and purge all noncitizens from state voter rolls, according to the Miami Herald.

Federal authorities had given the state until today to respond to a letter demanding that the effort be stopped and informing the secretary of state’s office that it might be a violation of at least two voting laws.

Florida intends to respond, but will ask for clarification about how federal laws are being violated, the Herald reported Tuesday.

“Our letter will address the issues raised by DOJ while emphasizing the importance of having accurate voter rolls,” Chris Cate, a spokesman for Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner, told the newspaper.

Read More at newsmax.com.  By Greg McDonald.

Three Takeaways From the Recall Vote

/0 Comments/in /by

The Democrats’ attempt to recall Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker came to an end Tuesday night, as the incumbent increased his victory margin beyond his five-point 2010 win over Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett. There are three important takeaways from this:

1) The results don’t tell us much about 2012 . . . Basically, this spin from progressive sites right now has some truth to it (except that this is somehow good news for President Obama). This is a special election, held in June, to recall a governor. Special elections have notoriously poor track records predicting general election outcomes, and the presidential electorate will likely look different (and more Democratic) than this one.

In particular, we might recall the most recent recall of a governor — that of California’s Gray Davis in 2003. Republicans took Arnold Schwarzenegger’s win in that election as a sign that President Bush coulmore about Davis’s unpopularity and the Governator’s charisma as national events.

Similarly, it’s important to keep in mind that “recall fatigue” almost certainly played a role here. Exit polls suggest that supermajorities of voters thought that recalls should only be used in cases of corruption, or not at all. Walker’s campaign certainly played to that sentiment. A large number of voters might not have been crazy about the incumbent, but they thought that he should be given a chance to complete his term. When they go to the polls in November, these types of voters are very much in play for the president.

2) . . . but the results do tell us something about 2012. At the same time, turnout exceeded that of the 2010 gubernatorial race, and this was a high-profile election effort. In other words, it was anything but your typical, under-the-radar special election.

Read More at Real Clear Politics. By Sean Trende.

Tea Party Pushes Walker to Decisive Victory

/3 Comments/in /by

“36% of voters were Tea Party, 93% cast their ballot for Walker”

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker retained his seat in the election that sought to recall him from office, defeating his challenger Tom Barrett in this election (as he did in the 2010 governor’s race). Walker won with strong support from Republicans, conservatives, Tea Party supporters and a majority of votes from independents.

Walker is the first governor in U.S. history to survive a recall election. Gov. Gray Davis of California was recalled in 2003, and in 1921, North Dakota’s Governor Lynn Frazier of was ousted due to a recall.

The heated recall race began amid the controversy created when Walker released a state budget proposal that included limiting the collective bargaining rights for public union workers. In response, large demonstrations protesting Walker’s plan took place at the state capital building which eventually led to a recall effort. Voters who turned out for this election narrowly supported Walker’s handling of the collective bargaining issue: 52 percent approved, and 47 percent disapproved.

Voters were similarly divided when asked about the state law that limited the collective bargaining rights of government workers: 52 percent approved, and 47 percent disapproved.

As expected, those voters who approved of Walker’s policies voted overwhelmingly for the governor. Opponents of his policies backed Barrett, the Democrat.

Read more at CBSNews.com HERE.

Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, the Earth is Now Cooling

/21 Comments/in /by

Climate change itself is already in the process of definitively rebutting climate alarmists who think human use of fossil fuels is causing ultimately catastrophic global warming. That is because natural climate cycles have already turned from warming to cooling, global temperatures have already been declining for more than 10 years, and global temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or more.

That is one of the most interesting conclusions to come out of the seventh International Climate Change Conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute, held last week in Chicago. I attended, and served as one of the speakers, talking about The Economic Implications of High Cost Energy.

The conference featured serious natural science, contrary to the self-interested political science you hear from government financed global warming alarmists seeking to justify widely expanded regulatory and taxation powers for government bodies, or government body wannabees, such as the United Nations. See for yourself, as the conference speeches are online.

What you will see are calm, dispassionate presentations by serious, pedigreed scientists discussing and explaining reams of data. In sharp contrast to these climate realists, the climate alarmists have long admitted that they cannot defend their theory that humans are causing catastrophic global warming in public debate. With the conference presentations online, let’s see if the alarmists really do have any response.

The Heartland Institute has effectively become the international headquarters of the climate realists, an analog to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It has achieved that status through these international climate conferences, and the publication of its Climate Change Reconsidered volumes, produced in conjunction with the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

Read more theACRU.org HERE.

Are We A Nation of Men, Or A Nation of Laws?

/1 Comment/in /by

The USA was founded to be a nation of laws, not a nation of men. Our Founding Fathers knew all too well the European style of governance where the will of the King was the law of the land, and those laws were subject to the caprices of often mercurial monarchs. They did not want that here in their newly minted republic. They also wrote restrictions into the Constitution against bills or laws of attainder – laws that do not apply EQUALLY to everyone but target specific persons or groups in their enforcement. The Founders understood that in the hands of a corrupt official, such laws could be used as a weapon that would give an incumbent politician a major advantage over anyone else, and they knew that men COULD be corrupted. To balance HUMAN nature, they made us a nation of LAWS that would apply equally to all. To ensure the uniform enforcement of Federal laws, we have a Department of Justice, headed by the Attorney General of the United States and a similar legal hierarchy in each of America’s FIFTY states. The Attorney General, though a political appointee, in many cases holds a unique position. He or she may owe his or her position to a politician, but should that politician run afoul of the LAW, he or she is expected to investigate and prosecute that politician without passion or prejudice or appoint a special prosecutor in the event he or she is unable to do so without the appearance of conflict. In short, NO one is above the law – in THEORY anyway.

In REALITY, we have a “Justice” Department and Attorney General at the Federal Level who seems to be more about being a political ATTACK dog for his MASTER and his political PARTY than a WATCHDOG for the uniform and blind enforcement of Federal laws. Today we have more of an INJUSTICE Department, or Department of Obstruction of Justice, and Eric Holder is like a Mafia Enforcer carrying out attacks and lawsuits against anyone designated by his CAPO or DON as not towing the politically correct, ethnically pandering, party line. We’ve seen COUNTLESS examples of how the Attorney General and Department of Justice have attacked states attempting to legislate and enforce their own laws within their own borders, some of which have NOTHING to do with Federal authority, especially laws that are designed to minimize Voter Fraud. Why would the Attorney General of the United States NOT want honest elections? Could it be that it’s because HIS party generally BENEFITS the most from such FRAUDS?

Read More at Western Journalism.  By JL Guest

Photo Credit: mira (on the wall) Creative Commons

Video: President Obama ‘The Great Destroyer?’

/2 Comments/in /by

Author David Limbaugh appeared on Sean Hannity’s show last night to talk about his latest book, “The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama’s War On The Republic.”

The Hillary Gambit: Will She Replace Biden?

/5 Comments/in /by

In a sign of increasing desperation on the left, speculation is rife that Barack Obama will kick Vice President Joe Biden off his team and replace him with that perpetual presidential wannabe, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. As Hillary’s fans see it, such a maneuver would bring fat dividends to the Democratic ticket.

The only truly useful role Biden plays in the administration is that of a lightning rod and a diversion. Next to Mr. National Embarrassment, the president looks like a tower of intelligence and wisdom, his missteps dwarfed into insignificance by the Niagara Falls of gaffes the buffoonish VP disgorges with clockwork regularity. Otherwise, Biden’s utility is highly doubtful.

The white working class is not buying his faux regular-guy credentials, while the open war declared by the administration on the Roman Catholic Church has negated the Catholic vice president’s usefulness as the administration’s liaison to his church. On top of that, Biden’s personal popularity has been dropping like a lead balloon (in the latest polls, 42 favorable/45 unfavorable, and a lot worse, 40/54, where it really counts — in the battleground states). In short, rather than being an asset, the vice president increasingly looks like a liability to his boss and a serious drag on his campaign.

The secretary of state, on the other hand, looks like a winner. Hillary Clinton is hands down the most popular member of the administration, consistently scoring ratings in the mid-60s. She has been tirelessly cross-crossing the world, building up her resume as well as logging frequent flyer miles in six digits on her executive 757 (technically, a C 32A). During the primary season four years ago, she amassed 18 million votes and beat Obama among white women, seniors, and the middle class. These voters, never enthusiastic about Barack Obama, reluctantly voted for him in the general, but two years later wandered off the reservation and played a prominent part in the thorough drubbing the voters meted out to the Democrats in the off-year elections. The thinking of Hillary’s fans among the Democratic strategists is that she should be able to lure the prodigal sons and daughters back into the fold.

It is not a given, however, that Obama will draft his erstwhile rival. As Charles Krauthammer argues astutely, the president’s narcissism will make it very hard for him to make a move reeking of disloyalty to his own pick, Joe Biden, which would also call into question his judgment. More importantly, Obama would be loath to create an impression that he is desperate and has been reduced to go to Canossa and seek succor from the Clintons (two for the price of one). Furthermore, the powerful distaff tandem reportedly keeping Obama firmly under its thumb, his wife Michelle and his closest confidante and advisor Valerie Jarrett, detest and hate the secretary of state and would be aghast at the horrible prospect of yielding center stage in Washington to their nemesis. But aside from all that, is Hillary really that formidable? Will her luster hold up under close scrutiny?

Read More at American Thinker.  By Victor Volsky.

Photo Credit: US Embassy New Zealand (Creative Commons)

Restrictions on International Travel without Due Process

/1 Comment/in /by

A few weeks ago the United States Senate passed a piece of legislation called the “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act”, it is essentially a transportation bill focused on roads and bridges. Title III of the act is a revenue provision concerning gas guzzling, cars leaking underground storage tanks, import duties and a number of other fees, taxes and other revenue enhancements.

Section 40304 is a rather bizarre provision that certainly doesn’t seem to fit in a transportation bill and is buried so deep that few senators have probably even read that far into the bill which is 1676 pages. Section 40304 is titled “Revocation or denial of passport in case at certain tax delinquencies”. The provision specifically amends the 1926 Passport Act to permit the IRS to simply ‘Certify” to the Secretary of State that an individual “has a seriously delinquent tax debt in an amount in excess of $50,000.00. The law does not require that any hearing be held or require administrative due process of any kind. In fact the IRS must only give what is called a “Notice of levy” to the tax payer. This is nothing more than the IRS’ own determination that the taxpayer owes $50,000.00 and while $50,000.00 sounds like a lot of money, it can easily be the case that much smaller amounts with penalties and interest can cross the $50,000.00 threshold.

While most folks would consider this a heavy handed tool that denies taxpayers due diligence, it brings up an even more basic question: Do you have the “right” to travel? Most people would assume the answer to this question is “yes”, but actually no such right can be found in the Constitution. While the Founding Fathers may have deemed the right to travel so basic and fundamental that they didn’t feel the need to have a separate clause defining the right, The Government beginning with the Passport Act of 1926 considers travel a “privilege” not a right.

If you want a real eye opener on this topic, pull out your own passport (authorized by the Passport Act of 1926) and turn to the fine print at the back. Remember you can’t travel outside the US without a passport nor can you legally enter the US without a passport.

So, what is in the Passport fine print? Under the section titled “Important Things to remember about your Passport “It states in number two the following:

Read More at hemispherespublishing.com.  By Joel Nagel.

The President’s Obamacare Lies

/2 Comments/in /by

You and the American people have been deceived about matters of enormous significance. You may remember that on the night of Sept. 9, 2009, President Barack Obama gave an address to a joint session of Congress, which was televised to the nation. His purpose was to urge members of the House and Senate to pass the administration’s vaunted health-care bill. As he explained in his opening remarks,

… we did not come here just to clean up crises. We came to build a future. So tonight, I return to speak to all of you about an issue that is central to that future – and that is the issue of health care.

The speech was filled with promises and assurances that have proved to be shockingly false, and the president’s premise was based on deception. This comment stands out:

And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up – under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.

These two promises were specious (some would say dishonest). Long before Mr. Obama’s Big Night on Capitol Hill, he told the American people during his campaign that his first act as president would be to sign the pro-abortion “Freedom of Choice Act.” The Democrat-led Congress was never able to pass the legislation, but the president would have signed the pro-abortion bill if given the chance. This was, and still appears to be, his highest priority.

Read More at WorldNetDaily. By James Dobson.

Whining Democrat asks, “Can our country govern itself?”

/5 Comments/in /by

“Until we address the crisis of the failure of our institutions to resolve the significant challenges we face, don’t expect progress on any of them.” Could any statement be more decidedly emblematic of leftist doctrine than the claim that only government and its institutions are equipped to solve the problems of life? Never mind that these are usually problems created by government in its endless quest to solve longstanding problems previously created by government!

Two months ago, Barack Obama’s signature “Affordable Care Act” made an unexpected appearance before the United States Supreme Court. Unexpected, that is, because few if any of the ruling class left which wrote and passed the massive statute believed such a compassionate endeavor could meet with serious criticism. That the American people overwhelmingly opposed the left’s assault on their liberty was, of course, not considered “serious.”

ObamaCare had a rough three days of oral argument before the Justices, leading pundits throughout the liberal media to proclaim Barack Obama’s noble attempt at autocratic altruism in danger of being overturned. How could such a thing be possible? As five Justices had been nominated to the Court by Republican presidents, obviously they would rule the individual mandate unconstitutional, perhaps taking down other bits of the law for good measure. A clear case of judicial activism according to the left.

Yet because Supreme Court Justices did their job of asking hard questions about the clearly unconstitutional individual mandate, “one Democrat member of Congress told reporters…that if the Court were to strike down [ObamaCare], doing so would create chaos and would raise some serious questions, including ‘Can our country govern itself…’ ”

Can our country govern itself? For 2 years, Democrats enjoyed an unassailable majority in both House and Senate, allowing the left to pass ObamaCare without a single Republican vote. Obama himself has defied the Constitution and bypassed congress by means of executive order. Yet when a co-equal branch of government performs the task for which it was created, the left whine that the system is broken and the process of governing no longer possible.

Read More at Western Journalism. By Doug Book.