Tuesday, October 28, 2008

An Open Letter to Sen. Barack Obama

Senator Obama:

I have a couple of questions to ask you.

Considering that (1) your mentor when you were a teen, Frank Marshall Davis, was a Communist, (2) you worked on the Woods Foundation with William Ayers, a radical leftist, (3) you have written that you were attracted to Marxism, and (4) you have stated publicly at least twice that you would redistribute the wealth, doesn’t this mean that you and your policies are socialist?

Considering your remarks about Fox News, and the reaction to Joe the Plumber and Barbara West, would you as President try to “manage the press” in violation of the First Amendment?

Sincerely yours,

Wes the Press Operator

PS: I’ve been asked to list on applications all of my driving citations. I thought if I asked these questions, you would check it out.

PPS: Maybe you’ll also look into all my school grades.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

The Liberal Trifecta Agenda

The Liberal Trifecta Agenda

If a leftist president and a liberal supermajority in both House and Senate take office inJanuary, what will this mean for this country? We can be sure that they will use their dominanceof the national lawmaking process to enact their agenda. This is what I foresee as likely:

1. Re-enact the so-called Fairness Doctrine (FD). For those of us who are too young toremember the former FD, it required all broadcasters who promote one point of view togive equal time to proponents of the opposing view. I remember when, in the 1970s, aChristian radio station I listened to had to air statements by atheists and cults. The FDwas abolished in the 1980s because it violated the First Amendment right to free speech. It was also unfairly administered.
A new FD will be primarily aimed at conservative talk radio. Liberal talk radio hasbeen unable to attract enough listeners, so instead of competing fairly, the liberals want tohandicap the competition.

2. Enact the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) which Obama has said he wants to put intoplace. FOCA would invalidate all laws in all the states which regulate abortion. Whenone or more of the states challenge the law in court, my guess is that the federal judge(s)will be threatened (not publicly, of course) with impeachment if they make the “wrong”decision. With a liberal supermajority this threat will be credible.

3. Create the Federal Elections Standards Act (FESA). [The name is not official.] Thecurrent voter registration scandal and reported cases of vote fraud in several states and theelection mess it will create will provoke a demand for a way to prevent or rectify futuresituations. The most “foolproof” way (as though anything could actually be foolproof) isto tag each ballot with the voting number of the voter. Then validation of voters cancontinue through a set time (perhaps 30 or 45 days). If a voter’s registration is found tobe invalid, or if the voter has voted multiple times, his ballot can then be culled out andcancelled.
This might sound like a great idea until you realize that it abolishes the secret ballot. Who has access to the voting records? Database after database has been penetrated andconfidential information compromised. Do you want how you voted revealed to thosewho would harass you: your boss or union steward? Your opinionated neighbor? Theplace where you apply for a job? Or others?

4. Pass a very stringent hate speech law (HSL). This would make it a federal crime toeven call certain lifestyles “wrong” or “sinful” or “evil” on the pretext that disapprovalleads to violence. Since freedom of religion is protected by the First Amendment, andexception will be made permitting the criticism of religious beliefs and practices. So itwould still be legal to denounce and/or ridicule, even libel, Christians and Christianity,Jews and Judaism too. Don’t worry about the Muslims. People will be afraid to criticizethem (*POW*).

5. After the HSL is in place and tested, now is the time to pass a Right ofMarriageAmendment (ROMA) and send it to the states for ratification. ROMA wouldsay something like, “no state, territory, district or any other jurisdiction of the UnitedStates shall restrict or prohibit the right of any two persons to marry for reason ofgender.” In other words, it would permit same sex marriage nationally.
It only takes two thirds of each house of Congress to pass a constitutional amendment,but it takes three fourths of the states to ratify it. This is where the HSL comes in. Sincegender orientation is protected from disapproving comment by the HSL, it would now beillegal to campaign against ROMA if it is brought up for ratification in your state.

Does this sound scary? That depends on how much you value the free and open society wehave enjoyed for so long in this land.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Is Voter Registration Fraud a Threat to the Secret Ballot?

Is Voter Registration Fraud a Threat to the Secret Ballot?

At this time, we are in the midst of a massive voter registration scandal. Workers hired by ACORN to canvas people and register them to vote have ignored the law and common sense in several ways.

1. They have registered persons already registered. This has resulted in multiple registrations for the same person. One man in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, was registered as many as 73 times.

2. They have falsified the registration applications. This includes entering the names of fictitious persons, deceased persons, celebrities, etc.

3. They have registered persons ineligible to vote, although the persons told them they were not eligible.

4. They have used aggressive tactics in canvassing, in some cases offering incentives to people to register.

According to the testimony of several persons, the canvassers claimed they had to get enough registrations to get paid.

During this time, I have been hearing that the secret ballot, which we have enjoyed in this country, may come to an end. So how does this relate to the scandal?

First, with such a widespread voter registration scandal, in at least fourteen states, so close to the election, it threatens the integrity of the election itself. The result of a vote count controversy in so many states will raise an outcry, a call by the public for some way to prevent this, or at least to cull out the votes of voters who are found to either be ineligible or to have voted multiple times.

One method would be to tag each ballot cast with the voter who cast it. This is easy to do with electronic voting. It can also be done with other voting methods, too. Then after the election, as verification of voter registrations continues for those the officials did not have time to verify before the election, if a voter proves to be ineligible, his ballot can be located and cancelled.

This may sound like a good idea to many, especially with so many late registrations pouring in. But there is a danger. Who has access to the records, the links between the votes and the voters? How secure are they? The past few years, database after database has been penetrated, making sensitive information insecure.

What if those on one side of an issue or for one candidate were able to comb through the lists of votes and voters? Would every union member want the union officials to know how he or she voted? Would every employee want his employer to know how he or she voted? Some people live in neighborhoods where they certainly would not want the neighbors to know how they vote. Would you want your voting record made public?

We see stories in the news of the government and political parties in certain other countries harassing those who vote against them. Elections are won by 90% or more, because voters are afraid of losing their jobs or defending themselves from trumped up charges. Do we want to see that happen here?