Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

A New Voter-ID Proposal



Must Show ID_CroppedAlthough 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/



Saturday, August 18, 2012

No Voter-ID Means More Democrat Voters in November



voter-idA recent Washington Post poll showed that “74 percent of Americans favor government-issued photo ID mandates at polling places.” This meant little to CNN because the network, whose ratings are in the proverbial toilet, ignored those numbers “in six separate segments on voter ID laws.”
A majority of Americans believe that showing identification is simply common sense when identification is necessary to identify someone. When it comes to voting, liberals are incensed that anyone would have to prove who they are. If we were all saints, and a person’s word could be trusted, then showing an ID would be unnecessary. But that would be true for all types of calls for identification.
Elections are about money and power. Elected officials have control over our lives and property with laws they pass. Millions of people vote to empower people to take money from some people and give it to them. This makes them accomplices to theft. It’s little different from hiring someone to break into a neighbors house to steal money.
If a person is willing to vote for people to take money from other people, why do we think they will be honest about who they are? Who’s to say that they won’t vote more than once or scheme to use the names of dead people and pets to increase the vote for a candidate? Am I making this up? Voter registration forms were “mailed to hundreds of dead Virginians, children, non-citizens, pets, and others ineligible to vote.”
A judge in Pennsylvania had enough good sense to see through liberal outrage and upheld a law requiring that voters show identification. Judge Robert Simpson wrote, “Thus the photo ID requirement of Act 18 is a reasonable, nondiscriminatory, nonsevere burden when viewed in the broader context of the widespread use of photo ID in daily life.”
Are there political motives on each side of the issue? Of course there are. But that doesn’t change reality. Some people are liars and thieves in both parties.
The Justice Department’s civil rights division shot down a new photo ID requirement for voters in Texas because many Hispanic voters lack state-issued identification. A similar edict from the Justice Department was leveled against South Carolina.
When I saw the doctor to be treated for a sinus infection, I had to show my driver’s license and insurance card. On my way to work a few weeks ago, the police set up a road block to check insurance cards and driver’s licenses. I wonder if the Hispanics didn’t have to show any ID. (Of course, I’m not in favor of random ID checks. I only mention this to make a point.)
Every time I fly, I have to show my ID two times before I can board the plane. When I checked into the hotel, I was asked for my ID and a valid credit card. While in Las Vegas, I set up two business bank accounts. They wanted a whole lot of IDs. Last week I went to a different bank branch to cash a check, and the teller asked for my ID and wrote my license number on the check.
Here’s a convenient list of where you will need an ID:
DMV
Airports
Hospital
Pharmacy
Donating Blood
Banks
Gun Shop
Cashing a Check
Adoption Agency
Social Security Office
Pawn Shops
Jail
Using a Credit Card
Court
Union Elections
Here’s where liberals say you shouldn’t need an ID: In the voting booth where people choose candidates to make laws for all of us. Is it too much to ask that we want to know if they are who they say they are and haven’t voted in the place of someone else or have voted six times? I don’t think so.


http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/08/no-voter-id-means-more-democrat-voters-in-november/



Thursday, August 9, 2012

TSA Agents Caught Smuggling Cocaine and Heroin at Atlanta Airport



tsa-badgeIf you’re a drug dealer, sex offender, a child molester or have some other criminal record, and you’re having trouble looking for work, look no further than the TSA. They employ all sorts of people with shady backgrounds and questionable characters, to say the least. Who else would be willing to grope little kids and grandmothers and look at images of people’s naked bodies on their X-ray scanners?
And it’s all in the name of keeping us safe from terrorists. I’m sure that’s what Richard Cook and Timothy Gregory were thinking when they got involved in a drug-smuggling business at the Atlanta airport. Cook had made a deal with some drug dealers back in January that for every kilo of heroin smuggled through security, he’d get paid $2,500. In February, Cook left the TSA and handed the reins of his drug business over to co-worker Gregory, who received $1,000 per kilo of cocaine smuggled. Little did either of them know, however, that their drug bosses were FBI agents working undercover, and the cocaine and heroin were both fake.
Just last Tuesday, both TSA agents were indicted on charges they conspired to smuggle drugs. We still don’t know how this relationship between the Feds and the TSA agents was initiated. I find it odd and a little bit humorous that the Feds chose to pick on some of their own. Usually, they work undercover with non-government employed drug dealers and eventually catch them in the act. They even work undercover with Muslims or white supremacists, assisting them in a terrorist attack by providing them with guns, explosives, money or anything else they need in order to execute the attack only to “thwart” it at the last minute and have those involved arrested for terrorism. So why would they want to “expose” the TSA?
Not that I have any problem with that. We hear stories all the time involving the TSA “sexually assaulting” passengers, injuring them, laughing at the naked images on the scanners, strip searching children, etc. It’s definitely not surprising that a couple of TSA officers tried to make some extra money on the side by getting illegal drugs through security.
This isn’t the first time the TSA has assisted in the smuggling of drugs. Earlier this year in April, the Hartford Courant reported:
“Three Transportation Security Administration officers, two police officers and more than a dozen drug dealers in Florida, New York and Connecticut are charged in the smuggling conspiracy that delivered illegal Oxycodone pills from Florida to the Waterbury [Conn.] area. …Authorities said that the TSA officers — two in Florida and one in New York — were paid to help drug couriers move pills and the stacks of cash they generated through airport screening systems.”
And last year in LA, TSA screeners were found to allow luggage they knew to be filled with methamphetamines, cocaine and marijuana to pass through their “security” checkpoints in exchange for cash. These cases in Connecticut and California weren’t assisted by undercover agents.
Maybe this is why they went undercover in Atlanta. Maybe they’re trying to “crack” down on the TSA’s underground drug business at the airports and weed out those that they suspect of having potential to engage in such behavior. Whatever the case, the fact that our government engages in these types of sting operations is still troubling. They engage in breaking the law themselves, hoping to get others to do the same so that those people get in trouble. Nothing happens to the undercover agents because they were just “doing their job.” This case reveals what we already knew to be true about the TSA — that they employ moral delinquents. It also reveals that our government can engage in criminal activity with impunity as long as they get others to engage in it with them.




http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/08/tsa-agents-caught-smuggling-cocaine-and-heroin-at-atlanta-airport/

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

What be this woman smokin'? Then again she's in California


 
 
This horrible woman has no shame.
Nancy Pelosi told a bunch of ignorant college kids at the George Soros-funded Campus Progress convention that President Obama “has signed many expansions of freedom” into law. Like say, Obamacare, for instance… Or, his farm bill that forces farmers to cut down on dust… Or, even his energy bills that force coal plants to shut down in favor of failed green projects.
It’s like “freedom” is oozing from his socialist pores.
Campus Reform reported, via Free Republic:
Former Speaker of the House and current Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi 
“>told an audience of more than 600 college students last week that President Obama has signed many “expansions of freedom” into law since he took office in 2008.
Pelosi, speaking at a youth conference hosted by the George Soros funded Campus Progress, said the President’s work with health care best illustrates his agenda to increase civil liberties for American citizens.
“Central to all is the Affordable Care Act, which we think is about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” said Pelosi. “A healthier life, for liberty, to pursue your happiness.”
The former Speaker also listed new laws pertaining to hate crimes and Don’t Ask Don’t tell as examples of legislation that has expanded American freedoms.
However, others are skeptical of Pelosi’s claim that President Obama has increased civil liberties for Americans.
Related… Here are the top five freedoms that are at stake due to the recent Obamacare ruling.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Officer responds to Bloomie and his suggestion Police walk off the job

This letter has helped restore my trust in our law enforcement people.  Thank God they are on the job, unlike  bloomberg and those of his ilk.


Rebuttal To Mayor Bloomberg

Mayor Bloomberg: your arrogance and ego are your undoing. We law enforcement professionals don't take the oath and perform our duty for any political purpose. We put on that uniform, pin on that badge, strap on that gun and go out into our communities...


LinkedIn
15
Comments
14
609
Once again I find myself having to open a blog entry with this disclaimer: the opinions stated are solely those of Frank Borelli and do not in any way represent the opinions or thoughts of Cygnus Business Media, Officer.com, any of its employees, associates or representatives. Now let me dive into the meat of this blog: a rebuttal to Mayor Bloomberg and some stupid things he's said.
We've all seen in the news how James Holmes planned, schemed, purchased and prepared before he went into a movie theater in Aurora, CO and killed twelve people, shooting another 58. We've all seen how people from both sides of the 2nd Amendment aisle (pro and anti) have jumped on the event to further their own agenda. What we've JUST seen, Monday, July 23rd, was the first time a politician in the national limelight called on police officers, nationwide, to neglect their duty and endanger lives to serve that politician's anti-gun cause.
On the Piers Morgan Tonight show, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg suggested that police officers across America go on strike and refuse to protect people until more gun control laws are enacted. The first time I read that my brain skipped a moment, I blinked and then I went back and read it again. NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg suggested that police officers across America go on strike and refuse to protect people until more gun control laws are enacted. Um, HUH?!
Mayor Bloomberg's statement was: I don't understand why the police officers across this country don't stand up collectively and say we're gonna go on strike, we're not gonna protect you unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what's required to keep us safe.
Well, Mayor Bloomberg, let me give you a few reasons why, and in the process hopefully explain how your suggestion is not only stupid, but it's insulting, AND it marks you as a politician who doesn't care in the least about his constituency.
First, we law enforcement professionals take an oath. That oath includes promising to fairly and impartially enforce the laws of our city, county and state. That oath includes obeying and/or protecting the Constitution of the United States (which contains that thing called the 2nd Amendment if you remember correctly). That oath usually says something about protecting the citizens of the community we serve. That oath isn't just a collection of words mashed together that we say so we can start collecting a paycheck. That oath has a deeper meaning: it comes from our heart. We speak it with our right hand in the air and (often) our left hand on The Bible.
The law enforcement professionals who take such an oath are quite often men and women who have taken a similar oath as they entered military service. They have family members who also serve in a public safety uniform. They are the kind of men and women who volunteer to run TOWARD the sound of shots instead of away from them. They are the kind of people who hold honor close in their hearts and they feel the weight of their duty; a duty they chose; a duty they take seriously; a duty contained in their oath; a duty they won't shirk simply to serve some politician's agenda.

more