A New Voter-ID Proposal

September 11, 2012 by Chris Graham

Filed under 2012 Election, Constitution, Economics, Law, Politics, Technology

9

29

Although a strong majority of voters supports laws requiring a photo ID in order to vote in elections, every Democrat and his dead neighbor seems to oppose such laws. Of course, standing one’s ground when principles are being attacked is admirable, even when the attacker is the majority. However, we are not a democracy, thank goodness, which means that the majority opinion does not always win. This is comforting given the fact that the majority are sometimes wrong. But in the case of voter IDs, the majority is most definitely not wrong. So why do Democrats oppose voter-ID laws?

I introduce to you a radical, left-wing group calling themselves The Advancement Project (if you oppose them, you oppose advancement). The group describes itself as a “multi-racial civil rights organization” whose purpose it is to help “organized communities of color dismantle and reform the unjust and inequitable policies that undermine the promise of democracy.” They view the voter-ID requirements as an affront to “racial justice.”

They contend, as do their fellow liberals, that minorities and senior citizens are detrimentally affected by the requirement of a photo ID when voting because, er, blacks and old people…um…don’t have…photo IDs…? Well anyway, it’s something absurd like that.

Sometimes, in order to defend this position, Democrats will do what is normally unspeakable for them: invoke the Constitution. See, the Twenty-fourth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits poll taxes, which is what Democrats insist an ID requirement to vote is because photo IDs cost money. One problem with this argument is that the Constitution, including its Twenty-fourth Amendment and the right to vote, only applies to United States citizens. Without a proper ID at the voting booth, where is the guarantee that a voter is a citizen? Here it becomes clear that the voting system as it stands is in need of substantial reform.

But let’s humor the Democrats on this poll-tax issue. Let’s say voter-ID laws are tantamount to poll taxes. Let’s also pretend that the institution of voter-ID laws reduces the voter-participation rates among minorities and seniors, despite the fact that every state that has instituted such laws has seen an increase in minority and senior voters.

Why don’t they and groups like The Advancement Project redirect their efforts towards getting photo IDs for American citizens instead of trying to prevent a restoration of integrity to the voting system? And not just for the sake of voting. You can’t go through life without an ID of some sort. If they insist that these laws are poll taxes, then why not establish a fund to help the indigent to pay for IDs. There are lots of liberal multi-millionaires.

It wouldn’t cost much, based on the figures seen here. The average state ID costs around $15. If the claim is made that the federal government has not only the “right” but the “moral obligation” to subsidize the sex lives of teenagers, surely it and/or the states can subsidize something as important as voting.

http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/09/a-new-voter-id-proposal/

The Party of atheists, homosexuals, abortionists, and maahslimes

September 5, 2012 by Gary DeMar

Filed under 2012 Election, Abortion, Christianity, Economics, Islam, Morality, Politics, Racism

4

21

Former President Bill Clinton’s Democratic convention speech includes this line: “The most important question is, what kind of country do you want to live in?” Good question

It’s hard for me to believe that the majority of Americans want to live in a country where there is no God except the State, homosexual marriage is just like heterosexual marriage, abortion is a form of birth control, and Islam is on an equal footing with America’s Christian heritage.

The majority of Americans believe in God, and yet the Democrats removed any mention of Him from their platform. It’s not that it was an oversight; it was a conscious effort since “God-given potential” was in the 2008 platform. When an attempt was made by Ted Strickland (D-OH) to reintroduce God, all hell broke loose. He was booed:

Democrats have changed their convention platform to add a mention of God and declare that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The move came after criticism from Republicans. Many in the audience booed after the convention chairman, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, ruled that the amendments had been approved despite the fact that a large group of delegates objected.

 Notice that the criticism didn’t come from the Democrats.

The Democrat leadership ramrodded the new language over vociferous opposition. Keep in mind that a number of speakers mentioned God. This only goes to show that the Democrat convention is more theater than reality. The convention is designed to play to the ignorance of the voting population. They say one thing in public to get votes but do something else legislatively. Their voting public doesn’t care as long as the checks, condoms, and birth control pills keep coming.

Since every state that has voted on homosexual marriage defeated the measure — 31 states as of this writing – it’s a wonder that the Democrats see homosexual marriage as a winning issue. More than 8 percent of the delegates at the convention are homosexuals (more than 500 out and proud sexually incongruous delegates) — eight times the homosexual population in America.

And while God was put out of the Democrat party platform, homosexual marriage was put in. The Democrats became the first major U.S. political party to endorse gay marriage, and this happened in a state where voters approved a state constitutional referendum limiting marriage to heterosexuals.

The Democrats have always been the Abortion Party. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Democrats change their party identification to “Abortionists” in the future. It’s all they can talk about. Of course, if the Democrats keep supporting pre-born child killing, there won’t be an opposition party in the future.

What’s really evil about Democrat support for abortion is how it’s affecting the black community. While 95 percent of blacks vote for Democrats, a higher percentage of blacks get abortions. It’s been described as “black genocide.” What fools they are.

What’s not getting a lot of attention is the number of Muslim delegates at the Democrat National Convention. There are more than 100, “up from 43 Muslim and Arab-American delegates at the 2008 Democratic convention, and 25 at the 2004 convention.”

“‘The more than doubling of Muslim delegates at this year’s Democratic National Convention is a direct result of their hard work and grassroots organizing within the Democratic Party,’ said CAIR Government Affairs Coordinator Robert McCaw. ‘It is also a sign of the American Muslim community’s growing civic engagement and acceptance in the Democratic Party.’”

I’m not sure what kind of Muslims these are considering the Democrat Party platform’s non-support of God and the support of homosexual marriage and abortion on demand. The only think I can think of is that the Muslims are biding their time. One day they will be running the Democrat Party.

http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/09/the-party-of-atheists-homosexuals-abortionists-and-muslims/

http://visiontoamerica.com/12017/party-of-atheists-homosexuals-abortionists-and-muslims/

‘Agenda 21′ and Why is the GOP Now Opposed to It?

August 31, 2012 by Philip Hodges

Filed under 

One of the new additions to the Republican Party platform is opposition to Agenda 21. In its section on leadership in international organizations, the platform now reads, “We strongly reject the U.N. Agenda 21 as erosive of American sovereignty, and we oppose any form of U.N. Global Tax.” I’m glad they added this language to the platform, but I wonder how many people who voted in favor of this addition know what Agenda 21 is.

Agenda 21 is a plan put forth by the United Nations that seeks to implement “sustainable development.” Nebulous government-speak terms like “smart meters,” “smart growth,” “sustainable communities,” “greenways,” and my personal favorite, “social justice” all have to do with the U.N.’s Agenda 21. On the surface, sure they sound good. Why would we not be in favor of “smart” things and “sustainability?” Why would we not be in favor of “social justice?” They sound like things we could be in favor of, but what do they mean by them?

At the U.N.’s “Earth Summit” in 1992, George H. W. Bush was one of 178 world leaders who signed the Agenda 21 protocol and agreed with its goals. Maurice Strong was the Secretary General at this conference. He stated that “current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.”

Agenda 21 is all about environmental control. It seeks to ration natural resources in the same way that Obamacare will ration healthcare. Energy will be rationed based on the assumption that our government owns all resources including food, water and land. Local Agenda 21 initiatives will mandate certain appliances and outlaw others based on energy consumption, and your energy consumption will be monitored so that you don’t “go over your limit.” Homes and buildings will have to be built or rebuilt to meet new “green” building codes or else face hefty fines. It seeks to transition citizens away from rural areas and into cities. It wants to “wean” people off private vehicles (because of “dirty” fossil fuels) and have them start using public transportation like high-speed rail. Outdoor recreational activities will be restricted because those practices are not “sustainable.”

“Social justice” means the abolition of private property. Here’s an excerpt from a report published at the U.N.’s Habitat I Conference in 1976:

Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interest of society as a whole.

It’s not fair that individuals own land or property. What will make it fair is if it is collectively owned. The United Nations wants to mandate global communism. They just don’t call it that. They call it “social justice.” And they’re going to execute “social justice” through “sustainable development.”

These things are already happening in our own country. Over 600 cities and counties across the U.S. have become members of ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives), “an international association of local governments as well as national and regional local government organizations who have made a commitment to sustainable development.” Check here to see if your town, city or county is a member.

In 1993, a year after Bush Sr. signed the Agenda 21 protocol, President Clinton issued an executive order that created the PCSD (President’s Council on Sustainable Development). This group made Agenda 21 public policy and sought to implement its goals at the local level through ICLEI. J. Gary Lawrence was an adviser to this council. He advised that people should not know about Agenda 21 because if they knew about it, they would be opposed to it:

Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society….This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21. So we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.

And this is why we don’t ever hear about it. They control the language in media. Their agenda is shrouded in vague terms that could mean anything, and people are naïve enough to give them the benefit of the doubt. Since the creation of Clinton’s PCSD, Obama has issued executive orders creating similar and more expansive “councils” that work to further the U.N.’s agenda.

Tom Madrecki is a spokesman for Smart Growth America, another one of those Agenda 21 type organizations. He doesn’t like the fact that Agenda 21 is in the new Republican platform. He said, “The fact that it’s in the platform gives credence to something that just shouldn’t get any.” He’s concerned that such a mainstream position opposing Agenda 21 will only serve to stir dissent and will “continue halting beneficial conversations about community planning.” There’s another one of those buzz phrases…”community planning.”

It’s great that the Republican Party has officially taken a stand against the United Nations and its global communist agenda. I hope it stays in their platform, and I hope Romney and other elected republicans will work tirelessly to expose the U.N. for what they really are and to extricate the U.S. from the organization itself, thus restoring our national sovereignty.

http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/08/agenda-21-and-why-is-the-gop-now-opposed-to-it/

August 10, 2012 by Philip Hodges

Environmentalist Hypocrisy and Excessive Carbon Footprints

Shortly after Al Gore’s blockbuster hit An Inconvenient Truth, a mass-forwarded e-mail went viral (which Snopes confirmed to be true). The e-mail described in detail two different houses and asked the reader to guess which one belonged to an environmentalist. The first house that was described was a 10,000 square-foot, 20-room mansion heated by natural gas.

Besides the 20 bedrooms, it had 8 bathrooms. It also had a pool and a pool house.According to the e-mail, the average electricity and gas bill ran $2,400 a month, and the amount of natural gas consumed by the mansion was over 20 times the average American home.

The second house that was described was a 4,000 square-foot, 4 bedroom house that incorporated every “eco-friendly” feature that current home construction offers. The house used geothermal heat pumps that drew ground water from 300-foot deep pipes, and this water was used to cool the house in the summer and heat it in the winter. This system used no natural gas and used only 25% of the electricity used to power a conventional heating and cooling system.

Rainwater was collected from the roof and funneled into an underground 25,000-gallon cistern. Wastewater from the showers, sinks, and toilets was sent through water purification tanks underground before being sent to the underground cistern. This cistern water was then used to irrigate the property around the house.

The e-mail’s surprise ending revealed that the first house, the gas-guzzling mansion, belonged to none other than Nobel Peace Prize-winning documentarian, Al Gore himself. The second house, a paragon of “green” efficiency, belonged to George W. Bush. Obviously, the point of the e-mail was to point out “an inconvenient hypocrisy” of the left.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service is an agency of the USDA which works among other things to solve the problem of “anthropogenic global warming.” On their website, they say that even though agricultural sources account for only 6% of all greenhouse gas emissions, farmers can and should still do things to curb their emissions and help to “solve” global warming. You’d think that the NRCS and our government would want to set a good example. (Or not.)

The Government Accountability Office reports that the NRCS operates over 9,500 vehicles for its 11,600 employees. And even though the NRCS has reduced its fleet in recent years due to budget cuts, the USDA, its mother agency, has actually increased its fleet by a couple thousand vehicles in the past few years. Including the Postal Service, the U.S. Government owns and operates over 650,000 vehicles.

When you include government buildings, our government has a “carbon footprint” of 123 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. About half of those tons are apparently not subject to reduction targets because they’re generated by our own Department of Defense. Our government doesn’t have to try to reduce those emissions because President Obama, another Nobel Peace Prize winner, has to continue fighting his wars overseas.

The government wants us to reduce carbon emissions by using public transit, buying the right cars and using “alternative” fuels. Some states have even introduced “carbon taxes.” Maybe a good way for them to set a good example is not to continually add bureaucracies to themselves that end up wasting more money, resources and energy. It looks like the only man-made “greenhouse gas” that needs significant reduction is our own over-bloated federal government.

http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/08/environmentalist-hypocrisy-and-excessive-carbon-footprints/

Have you noticed El Presidente is lookin' a bit haggard?

Barack Obama Should Remember That The Government Didn’t Get There On Its Own

Posted on July 17, 2012 by John Hawkins

Here’s Barack Obama channeling Elizabeth Warren about how all of those awful successful people in America owe the government all of their money because it built roads and street signs.

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

To begin with, it’s not as if wealthy Americans aren’t already giving something back. In fact, they’re giving so much back that rich Democrats like Denise Rich are fleeing the country so they can give less back somewhere else.

It’s also intriguing that in the process of telling successful people not to forget about teachers, stop signs, roads, and street lights, etc., which every American benefits from, he seems to forget that the government was only able to build those things because of the taxpayers. Every dime Barack Obama spends on his vacations, his golf outings, on encouraging more people to use food stamps, or to hire new IRS agents to go after Americans who don’t dance to his tune under the new health care law — all of that is paid for through taxes. Moreover, those services are of such low value that the government doesn’t even have the guts to ask almost half of Americans to pay any income taxes to cover the expenses. In other words, we’re to the point where Obama has to try to incessantly get more out of rich Americans because the poor and even many middle class Americans don’t think the services the government provides are worth the money.

Last but not least, it is true that the government played a role in creating the Internet, but it had almost nothing to do with the Internet growing into a massive worldwide force. In fact, the most significant thing the government did to help along the growth of the Internet was to take a hands-off approach. Thank goodness it did. If the government were as involved in the Internet as it is in medicine or banking regulations, computers wouldn’t be good for anything today except playing PONG and chatting on bulletin boards.

http://dustinstockton.com/2012/07/barack-obama-should-remember-that-the-government-didnt-get-there-on-its-own/