by: the Common Constitutionalist
So have we officially moved into a new American era; the era of gloves off, minority pandering?
According to our Speaker of the House, the Honorable John Boehner, one of the reasons the Republicans lost, Mitt Romney lost, is due to not speaking to all Americans.
Boehner’s response was predictably milquetoast. “Well, I think what Republicans need to learn is how do we speak to all Americans. You know, not just the people who look like us and act like us, but how do we speak to all Americans.”
Yep, you read that correctly. Good old John Boehner, acting as the, go along to get along, moderate he is.
I guess that’s us. I’m two out of three anyway; too white and too male. Maybe I just need a tan a sex change.
As I see it, we as conservative outcasts, have two problems. They are illegal immigration and giveaways. (Racism is a given, so I’m not including it).
By now, we who haven’t tuned out yet, have started to hear the growing cacophony of cries from Republican “know-it-alls”, to be more inclusive.
Now, what exactly is “Comprehensive Immigration Policy”? Simply said, it is, let them all in and grant them instant citizenship, which gives them the right to vote (Democrat of course).
That’s fairly comprehensive, I’d say.
You might ask yourself why the Democrats are so hot to legalize all the illegals. Is it as they claim? Are they the true party of inclusion and the big tent? Are they actually just looking out for the poor and disenfranchised illegals?
I say we put it to the test and Rush Limbaugh has devised a perfect one. It’s genius, if I do say.
His idea is to have the Republicans compromise with the dems. This is what the moderates in our party want, is it not? Do they not want us to be Democrat light?
Yes, let us compromise, with one proviso. The Republicans, the party of no, will become the new party of yes.
The proviso is that said “new citizens” will relinquish the right to vote for 25 years.
Why would we conservatives ever agree to such thing? Just think about it for a moment.
Think of why the dishonest, devious Democrats really want to legalize the criminal aliens. Is it their big hearts? Hell no! It’s the vote. That’s all it is and that’s all it’s ever been.
Hispanics increasingly vote Democrat, not for their solidarity regarding immigration, but for the freebies they know the Democrats will provide. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it’s a fact.
Republicans think that Hispanics might come over from the Democrat side because of Latinos purported similarly strong family and religious values. They’d be wrong. It’s the welfare they are after, the free stuff.
For example, in California, US-born Hispanics use welfare programs at twice the rate of non-Hispanics. Nearly 7 out of 10 poor children are Hispanic.
With that statistic, do we really think they care about immigration? Of course not. They’re voting for a continuation an escalation of the welfare state.
I learned a long time ago that when selling a product or an idea, one has to be unique, set yourself apart from the rest. You must also educate your customer, so he fully understands just what he’s buying and why he should jump ship and purchase from you.
None of these “voters” will leave the Democrats for the Republicans just because we go along. We are, in effect, just offering them a “me too” product.
So let’s develop some backbone and call them out for what they really are – vote pimps.
It’s time we went on the attack.
Put the Limbaugh immigration offer on the table and watch the Dems squirm and make any excuse possible not to agree with it. Let them, for once, have to show their hand.
CAIR survey shows similar political preference to American Jews, 69% of whom voted to reelect the president.
The number represents a small drop-off from 2008, in which Obama won 89% of the Muslim vote. Of the 650 American Muslim voters in CAIR’s informal survey, only 4% said that they voted for Republican challenger Mitt Romney.
Similarly, Jewish support for Obama slipped somewhat in the 2012 presidential race but still far surpassed that earned by Romney.
According to exit polls, 69% of Jews cast their ballot for the Democratic candidate as compared to 78% in 2008. Some 30% went for Republican Mitt Romney, up from 22% for the party’s candidate in the last presidential race.
The exit polls were conducted by a national consortium and generally include samples of 400-500 Jewish voters in their national survey.
Democratic pollster Jim Gerstein said the drop in the Jewish vote – of about 5% – is consistent with the drop in support for Obama overall among other key constituencies such as Catholics and white voters. Nationally, Obama’s popular support dropped from 53% of the vote to 50%.
I understand why 85% of American Muslims voted for Obama. How in the world could almost 70% of Jews?
This country is more confusing every year. The people of Pennsylvania and Ohio, coal producing states, vote to reelect the man that had vowed to destroy their industry and now this.
How could any Jew that has even a passing kinship with Israel vote for a man with such close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization that vows the destruction of Israel?
I guess that’s a retorical question because, as I’ve been saying for years, a liberal is a liberal first and whatever else they claim to be, a distant second.
Attribution: Jerusalem Post, Hilary Leila Krieger
More Scorn for Chief Justice Roberts as Details of Switch Leak
As Breitbart News suggested last week, it appears Chief Justice John Roberts did, in fact, switch his vote on the Obamacare decision under pressure from President Barack Obama, the Democrats, and the mainstream media. John Fund at National Review has more details today–including evidence about a bizarre address by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chair of the Judiciary Committee, that singled out Roberts himself:
Indeed, Senator Patrick Leahy (Vt., D.) , the chair of the Judiciary Committee, suddenly took to the floor on May 14 and directly addressed Roberts, urging him in harshly partisan tones to uphold Obamacare and maintain “the proper role of the judicial branch.”
Stewart Baker, a partner at the Washington law firm Steptoe & Johnson, writes at the Volokh Conspiracy that he found the whole campaign against Roberts weird and unusual, given that the justices’ conference vote on Obamacare had been held six weeks earlier. Why “would the chair of the Judiciary Committee risk the appearance of trying to harshly strong-arm the Court when his remarks wouldn’t make the slightest difference?” he asks. “The Leahy speech reads like it was written for an audience of one. It offers flattery and it offers threats, all of them personalized to appeal to Chief Justice Roberts alone.”
Fund adds that the White House likely benefited from leaks at the Court, and almost certainly knew of Roberts’s switch–just as it almost certainly knew of the initial vote to throw out the individual mandate in March:
The week before the Supreme Court announced its decision, the White House was clearly hinting to many in the media and on Capitol Hill that they expected a 5–4 opinion that would hinge on the taxing-power issue. Did someone leak? Sunday on Face the Nation, Jan Crawford of CBS News said that two reliable
sources told her that Roberts originally voted, in late March, with the four conservative justices to invalidate the individual mandate. According to Crawford, Roberts suddenly changed sides some six weeks later and then resisted “a month-long desperate campaign by the conservative justices to bring him back to the fold.”
I’ve learned from my own sources that after voting to invalidate the mandate, the chief did express some skepticism about joining the four conservatives in throwing out the whole law. At the justices’ conference, there was discussion about accepting the Obama administration’s argument, which was that, if the individual mandate was removed, the provisions governing community rating and guaranteed issue of insurance would have to go too but that the rest of the law might stand. The chief justice was equivocal, though, in his views on that point.
The more the public learns about Roberts’s decision, the more people are likely to hate it. Fund notes that even David Brooks of the New York Times agrees that Roberts “had to get to a certain result, and he was going to find a way by hook or by crook.” It’s a conclusion that aptly expresses how Obamacare was conceived, how it was passed, and now how it has been upheld by one of the worst decisions in recent years.
Common Constitutionalist note: I contend that Justice Sonia Sotomayor was placed on the court expressly for the Obamacare vote and that Justice Elaina Kagan is the leak. In my opinion, it’s common knowledge regarding the wise Latina. I have no proof regarding Kagan, but she is a Obama sycophant, and ran in the same academic circles from her time in Chicago, even hiring the radical friend of Obama, Cass Sunstein.
Breitbart.com reports that retired Navy SEAL Ben Brink told Fox News that he is reaching out to former special operations personnel to help monitor polls, especially in areas where voter intimidation has been reported.
“The nation saw the video of members of the Black Panthers in Philadelphia intimidating people trying to vote in 2008. We are going to try and make certain that nothing like that happens this year,” he said on the Larry Mendte show, according to a report at Phillymag.com.
“Don’t let the bravado fool you,” Mendte wrote. “The mission, according to the Captain, is to observe and report, not to engage. ‘We are going to watch for intimidation, videotape it, if possible, and report it to the proper authorities’.”
“Brink claims to have over a hundred former Army Rangers, Navy Seal, Delta Force, Green Berets and others who have volunteered for duty. The idea of Navy Seals and Black Panthers getting into it at a Philly polling site gives a whole new incentive for casting a ballot,” the report added.
“Our guys aren’t easily intimidated,” Brink added.
Earlier Tuesday, we reported that the New Black Panther Party showed up at the same Philadelphia polling place where two baton-wielding activists were located in 2008.
Conservatives on Twitter enjoyed hearing that America’s heroes are once again stepping up to protect freedom.
“Special Forces in Ohio, Navy Seals in Philly to keep Black Panthers from harming & Intimidating Voters. What’s THAT tell you America?” tweeted “Terri.”
“BREAKING! SEALS have arrived at polling places in Phillie where Black Panthers are intimidating voters! God bless our Navy SEALs,” exclaimed “dq24.”
According to Phillymag, the special operations veterans will be going to cities like Cleveland, Miami and Las Vegas, and Brink assured Mendte that voters have nothing to fear from the highly-trained operatives.
“Voters showing up to the polls probably won’t even notice they are there. These men are trained to be ghosts,” he said.
New video from Project Veritas shows an Obama for America campaign staffer providing advice and a ballot to an undercover reporter posing as an Obama activist about how to vote twice in the upcoming presidential election. The activist tells Obama for America Houston Director Stephanie Caballero, who is a salaried employee of the Democratic National Committee, she wants to vote in Texas and in Florida.
Former DOJ Attorney Christian Adams explains the legality of the situation.
Obama campaign attorney Robert Bauer should be emailing memos to every paid staffer detailing 42 USC 1973i(e) and 42 USC § 1973gg–10(2). The former federal law makes it illegal to vote twice. The latter law prohibits fraudulent voting in a federal election. 18 USC 2 makes it illegal to aid and abet election fraud.
Encouraging voter participation of marginal legality is nothing new for the Obama campaign. In 2008, they had an elaborate web portal for college students, encouraging some to register to vote where they went to school, discouraging others. The overall goal was to get students attending college in battleground states registered to vote in those states regardless of their actual domicile. If a student from a battleground state went to college in a safe red or blue state, they were encouraged to keep their registration in their home battleground state.
The Obama campaign website in 2008 never told the students to cancel their original voter registration. Nor did it provide guidelines for what constituted bona fide domicile.
Currently, voter watchdog groups like True the Vote are conducting data crunching to determine who may have violated federal election law in 2008 by voting in two states for President. If someone does it again in 2012, it will eventually be caught thanks to the efforts of private parties combing voter rolls.
The Obama for America will spin this story by throwing Caballero under the bus and will say she is an inexperienced staffer. The problem is, Caballero is the director of the Obama for America Houston office pulling a salary. Caballero isn’t an inexperienced staffer or volunteer, not to mention, Caballero’s response to the questions about voting twice should have been, “You can’t do that and it’s illegal.” Instead, Caballero giggled and encouraged double voting in Texas and the swing state of Florida.
UPDATE: Watchdog.org has more information about the violation of statutes.
Federally, 42 USC § 1973gg is the strongest as it penalizes attempts to deprive residents of a fair election through false voter registration forms. 42 USC 1973i(c) is your other strong bet. There are more (like the antiquated 18 USC 597), but these 1973gg and 1973i(c) are your strongest federal options.
Remember, policing election integrity occurs first at the state level, then goes up to the federal level. Under Texas law, pay attention to Section 273.001 of the Texas Election Code. It provides that if two or more registered voters present affidavits alleging criminal conduct in connection with the election to the county prosecutor, he shall investigate the matter. If the conduct concerns activities beyond one county, the state attorney general may be properly involved.
And Texas imposes duties upon state registrars to ensure that voter registration forms are complete and true — see Tex. Elec. Code 15.021, 15.112, 15.051(a). Texas election law also permits voting contests to occur when there is evidence of fraud or mistake in connection with the administration of an election (e.g. registering false voters). See Tex. Elec. Code 221.003
This article was from May of this year, but it is still instructive.
Navigating the Polls in an Election Year
by: Mike Flynn at Breitbart
with comments from the Common Constitutionalist [ ] cause I just can’t help it.
As the campaign season gets into full swing, voters can expect a deluge of polls. Every major media outfit and several independent polling organizations will provide almost real-time information on every twist and turn in the political landscape. The polls will not only cheer or frighten partisans on all sides, they will likely have a gravitational effect on individual campaigns themselves, as candidates adjust their campaigns to polling results. But, voters should beware. Even modern-day polling is more art than science. [I’ve seen many polls (most in fact) I believe are published for only one reason; to dispirit conservatives voters and hopefully cause them not to vote. They have all come from major media and polling organizations that are in the tank for Obama and the democrats. The polls you see are for public consumption and are usually not accurate. However, campaigns run their own internal polling that is usually for honest and accurate. They know they can’t afford to rely on the normally bogus public polls. We will never be privy to the internal polls.]
All polls reflect certain biases–not necessarily in the political sense–of pollsters. Taking a small sample and extrapolating it to the overall electorate involves lots of judgement calls that may not provide an accurate picture of the political landscape. While voters should look to sites like RealClearPolitics, which average a basket of recent polls to smooth out aberrations, the occasional “outlier” poll, showing results wildly different than other polls, is occasionally correct. It mostly comes down to the choices pollsters make in conducting their poll.
If you are reading this, you’re likely fairly politically aware and understand some basic differences between many polls. You understand that the first step in accessing a poll is looking at what’s called the “voter screen.” In other words, is the poll of adults, registered voters or likely voters. The difference matters a lot:
So if you have one poll of “adults” which says D53.5%-R46.5%, another of “registered voters” which shows D52-R48, and another of “likely voters” which shows D50-R50, they’re all saying the same thing. When you factor in the relevant adjustments for each screen, they’re all showing a tie at somewhere around an exact 50/50 split of those who will actually wind up choosing between Democrats and Republicans.
For the life of me, I don’t understand why media outlets like The Associated Press continue to poll “adults” on political issues. Around 20% of adults aren’t registered to vote. Putting aside the rather large inherent bias toward Democrats, why do we even care to know the political views of those who won’t be voting? Its about as useful as polling Canadians on their preference of U.S. politicians. [ I sound like a broken record, but duh. The AP might as well be the Obama press office. The know when they poll adults it will heavily skew the results toward their end, which is getting “The One” relected. ]
With the exception of Rasmussen Reports, however, most media and polling organizations use the registered voter screen until late in the campaign. This is due to the not unreasonable belief that, early in the campaign season, it is difficult to estimate who is most likely to show up at the polls. It won’t come as a shock to learn that people often lie in polls, claiming they will definitely vote but then, for a variety of reasons, fail to do so. So, as you see polls of registered voters, keep in mind that there is a general bias of +4% for Democrat candidates. [ Again, duh. Any poll, at the very least, not using only likely voters is junk and is used only to influence voters.]
But, even polls using a likely voter screen can be inaccurate. At this point, we need to discuss one of the less talked about and least understood aspects of polling: weighting.
When you start from a random sample of voters and begin conducting the actual interviews, it is very likely that the total universe of voters you actually speak with aren’t representative of the overall populace. You may have too many male, white, low-income, high education or Midwestern voters. Polling firms deal with this by “weighting” the sample, essentially tossing certain interviews so that the final results reflect responses from a representative sample that matches the nation’s demographics. [ Or, of course, responses that skew the outcome of the poll.]
Most of this is fairly technical and, with the exception of the occasional disreputable firm, fairly straightforward. Where it gets very tricky is where polling firms “weight” their sample based on their estimate of the partisan breakdown of the electorate. In other words, how many democrats, republicans and independents they include in their sample. This judgement call can throw off even the more accurate likely voter screen.
In 2008, an obviously big year for Democrats, the partisan breakdown of the actual electorate was:
- Democrats 39%
- GOP 32%
- Independents 29%
By ideology, the breakdown was:
- Liberal 22%
- Conservative 34%
- Moderate 44%
[ Ah, moderates, got a love um. Liberals without the courage to admit it.]
In 2010, an obviously big year for the GOP, the partisan breakdown of the actual was:
- Democrats 35%
- GOP 35%
- Independents 29%
By ideology, the breakdown was:
- Liberal 20%
- Conservative 42%
- Moderate 38%
So, any poll in 2010 that used 2008 as their baseline, i.e. weighting their polling sample to reflect the partisan breakdown of 2008, would have been wildly off. Remember, the pollster would have “tossed” certain interviews to get to the D-39, R-32 and I-29 sample.
So, is the electorate in 2012 going to be more like 2008 or 2010? Personally, with an energized GOP and conservative base, I don’t think the 2012 electorate is going to come remotely close to the partisan breakdown we saw in 2008. But, most pollsters seem to disagree and are weighting their polls for just such an outcome.
Organizations like Gallup and The Associated Press make it almost impossible to find out their partisan screen. Newer organizations, though, like Politico, DailyKos and Fox News do make this information available.
A recent poll by DailyKos/PPP, which had Obama up by 3 points, had the following partisan screen:
- Democrats 40%
- GOP 37%
- Independents 24%
- Liberal 27%
- Conservative 42%
- Moderate 32%
So, the DailyKos poll expects a bigger Democrat and liberal turnout than in 2008. Somehow, I don’t think that’s likely.
Politico‘s recent poll, which found Romney with a 1-point lead had the following partisan screen:
- Democrats 37%
- GOP 34%
- Independents 28%
(Note: I’ve done my own “weighting” and assigned “leans GOP” and “leans Democrat” to “Independents.”)
A recent FoxNews poll, which showed Obama with a 7-point lead had this partisan breakdown:
- Democrats 42%
- GOP 34%
- Independents 20%
What color is the sky in FoxNews’ world if they think the Democrats, in 2012, are going to increase their share of the electorate from 2008? When was it, exactly, that a bunch of independents suddenly switched to the Democrat party? [ They’re trying to all fair and balanced, don’t ya know.]
I think all of these polls are oversampling Democrats and undersampling Republicans. The nadir for the GOP was 2008, when they only made up 32% of the electorate. In the wake of ObamaCare and a stalled economy, there is no way the GOP is going to sit home like they did when faced with a McCain candidacy. Also, the Democrats were at the high-water mark of the “hope and change” promise of Obama in 2008, when they made up 39% of the electorate. There is no way they reach that level again.
So, every poll you see, dig deep into the partisan breakdown. Your mileage may vary, but you’d be right to adjust the numbers accordingly.
by: Madeleine Morgenstern of The Blaze
A nonpartisan election integrity group has sent legal notices to 160 counties across the U.S. that it says have more voters on its registration rolls than actual live, eligible voters — and thus represent potential hotbeds for election fraud, the organization told TheBlaze exclusively.
The Houston-based True the Vote said the counties may be in violation of Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act, which mandates that election officials maintain clean voter rolls by removing people who have died, moved away or are no longer eligible to vote. True the Vote is demanding each of the counties show proof of compliance or they’ll bring civil suit.
The counties in question are spread across 19 states that together account for 203 electoral college votes, including six current battleground states. Among the counties are LaSalle, Ill., which True the Vote identified as having 520 percent voter registration; Jefferson, Miss. with more than 230 percent; and Hanson, S.D. with 165 percent.
(Image source: True the Vote)
“It’s simply unacceptable for any county to have more voters on its rolls than people who are alive and eligible to vote,” True the Vote President Catherine Engelbrecht said in a statement. “Failing to maintain accurate voter registration records is a flagrant violation of Section 8 in the NVRA.”
by: the Common Constitutiionalist
Well, one of the bills that was voted on, was whether to amend the state constitution, abolishing the statewide property tax. Unfortunately, it was soundly defeated.
Why would one even propose such a thing, you ask? How could they possibly do without that revenue, you ask?
What about the teachers, the police and firefighters? Would they not all be laid off? That is what we hear, is it not?
Whenever anyone even suggests cutting the budget or lowering taxes (much less constitutionally negating one), do we not hear the wailing of discontent? Apparently the world as we know it will cease to exist.
Moving on. You see, North Dakota is awash in dirty oil cash. So much, I heard they are rolling it up and using it for kindling to light their fireplaces. Well that’s what I heard!
All right, that’s not exactly true., but they are in as good or better shape than any other state in the Union.
So if they have all this oil revenue coming in, why not abolish the property tax?
Do the citizens of North Dakota really like paying taxes or could it be people are afraid the oil might run out? Or maybe they’re afraid the feds will find a way to come in and shut them down. That’s probably more likely, but the fear mongering of elected officials & public employee unions have been very effective.
The constant drumbeat of needing more funding by the public sector can and does cause voter paralysis.
Well, I know the oil won’t be running out for centuries. I recently published an article explaining how I know. Link here to read it. So that’s not it.
That leaves us with the ever intrusive federal government and the fear mongering of the public sector.
I have no doubt that in the backrooms of the Whitehouse and the EPA, they are developing strategies to kill the North Dakota oil industry.
Just look around. They’ve already banned drilling off virtually every American coast. The BP spill, which turned out not to be the catastrophe they predicted, pretty much cemented that.
The Feds are well on their way to regulating the coal industry out of existence and let’s not forget the full-scale assault on hydraulic fracking for natural gas. At least we still have windmills & algae. Hooray!
Then there’s the sainted public sector, complete with their rent-a-mob thugs that get bussed from state to state threatening & wreaking havoc upon any state that dares attempt to cut their budget or otherwise right their fiscal ship.
To date, there has been only one Scott Walker, governor of Wisconsin, with the stones to stand up to the onslaught of leftist attacks. In my opinion, he may be the only true public servant in the country. By that I mean, he stood up for what he believed was right without regard for his job. He knew he could have lost it all, yet he persisted. That is the founders view of a public servant.
I understand the public fear of the federal government, especially this one. If left unchecked, they will find a way to curtail North Dakotas oil production.
What I don’t understand is the overarching fear of the loss of excess tax revenue. The state has proven they don’t need the revenue yet the voters still rejected it by about a 3 to 1 margin. Do they not get that there is no such thing as excess revenue in government? If money is coming in, it will surely be spent, thereby, simply expanding the baseline of the state budget. If, in the future, there is a disruption in oil revenue, what happens? Taxes will then have to be raised even further to accomodate for that shortfall.
By rejecting the amendment, they have potentially made it worse for their state. Instead, they should have accepted the amendment, doing away with the property tax. If, for whatever reason, the oil revenue does evaporate, the state can always go back to the polls and reinstitute the tax.
The moral of this story is a sad one. If a state that can afford to, but won’t cut taxes, what chance do the rest of us have? How far have we fallen. Could we really not survive without government?
Maybe we really have become a cradle to grave Nanny State society.
You can’t make this stuff up folks. Boy would I have loved to be there when this happened.
North Carolina is moving forward to legalize hydraulic fracturing — commonly called fracking — after an accidental vote by Democratic state Rep. Becky Carney overrode Democratic Gov. Bev Perdue’s veto on Monday.
Perdue had attempted to veto a Senate bill passed to allow the natural-gas extraction technique in her state, WRAL reported.
The vote was 72-47, with Carney’s accident providing the final vote necessary for the override.
Carney has voted against hydraulic fracturing in the past, and said she spent the day lobbying other Democrats to uphold the veto.
Carney pushed the wrong button. Moments later, her voice was heard on her microphone, saying, “Oh my gosh. I pushed green.” (I’m sure she was just thinking, “Eco Friendly” thoughts, by pushing the green button).
Republicans blocked Carney’s attempt to change her vote, since House rules in North Carolina don’t allow members to correct mistaken votes when the change would affect the bill’s passage.
The Associated Press defines hydraulic fracturing as “a technique used by the energy industry to extract oil and gas from rock by injecting high-pressure mixtures of water, sand or gravel and chemicals.”
Before the technology used in the technique was advanced in the 1990s, extracting that oil
and natural gas was not economically viable.
While proponents point to job creation, affordable energy and increased energy independence made possible by the technique, opponents say the chemicals used in the process could potentially hurt the environment, particularly drinking water (which has been proven to be a fabrication).
“I feel rotten, and I feel tired,” Carney told WRAL, “And I feel that mistakes are made constantly when people are tired.”
Attribution: The Daily Caller