Looks like the bedwetters have gotten themselves into quite an ironic pickle. The Supreme Court is deciding on a case of voter ID requirements in Indiana. By now you know the liberal arguments ... it disenfranchises the poor, the minorities, the elderly, blah blah blah.
Well it looks like someone didn't do their homework. Faye Buis-Ewing is 72 years old. She has become a "poster child" for the disenfranchised voter that will be protected under a voting system with no ID requirements.
But now we've discovered one minor problem. Not only is Faye registered to vote, but she is registered in two different states.
She claims two states as her primary residence.
She received a homestead exemption on her property taxes ... in two different states.
In other words, the leftist poster girl for their fight against voter identification laws is a criminal. What a shame.
Faye could not only vote, but she could technically vote more than the average citizen registered in only one state! She explains that she and her husband "winter in Florida and summer in Indiana."
Isn't that sweet?
She says that she has never voted in Florida, but she has a Florida driver's license. And when she went to vote in Indiana in November 2006 with her Florida driver's license, they, logically, did not accept it. Doesn't seem like rocket science to me! But hey, this is the average voter we are speaking of.
Now the League of Women Voters (I'm sure they are my biggest fans) say this experience is exactly the reason the law should be changed. No, ladies .... That is exactly the reason why the law should be upheld! I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that Faye is voting for Hillary Clinton. Maybe twice.
Remember this. It's the Democrats who are opposed to Voter ID laws, and it is the MoveOn Democrats who have benefited more often than not from illegal voters casting ballots. Even a government school graduate can figure out why they don't want voters to have to prove who they are. Hell, even I can figure that out.
#2
She received a homestead exemption on her property taxes ... in two different states.
haha. It's going to cost her a boatload of cash for being their poster child. She's been cheating on her taxes as well and now she will owe back taxes and penalties on one of those properties.
#3
It's time to see voter fraud in the proper light. Voter fraud is an attempt to subvert the government at every level of the United States and is therefore treason and should be punished by death.
Of course, that would mean the extinction of the Demonrat party.
#4
See, if it's some nice, little old lady Democrat, it's "disenfranchisement".
If it's some evil bad rich Republican, it's "voter fraud".
Know your stereotypes...
#6
I thought ID requirements disenfranchised the elderly and infirmed who no longer had a driver's license. This old broad globetrots the US wintering and summering along the way.
Posted by: regular joe ||
01/11/2008 22:11 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
01/11/2008 0:39 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Yikes!
That is amazingly spooky and ominous.
"Can't you just picture a young, fresh-faced Khalid Sheikh Mohammed stumbling across this in a Baluchistan newspaper, some dim flicker of a terrible plan taking hold, just before he books his own flight to the US for his formative education?"
Gives me the creeps.
Posted by: Gromomble Oppressor of the Iowans8916 ||
01/11/2008 7:22 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Ominous in retrospect, but what odds of a French language ad in a Baluchistan newspaper? This is like the rock band Anthrax that had to change its name after the powder-filled envelopes started showing up.
Group Portrait, With Bile by Benjamin Balint, Wall Street Journal
In recent years, "neoconservative" has become a term of abuse referring to the supposed cabal that brought about the Iraq war. . . . In They Knew They Were Right, Jacob Heilbrunn, a senior editor at The National Interest, revels in the term's abusive qualities. He sees neoconservatism as a dangerous moralistic "mentality" that derives from ethnic experience -- "as much a reflection of Jewish immigrant social resentments and status anxiety as a legitimate movement of ideas." Thus he describes neoconservatives as "an elect" of "prophetic personalities," bound by "tribal ties," who looked to Leon Trotsky as their Moses. While Norman Podhoretz used Commentary magazine as "his private Sinai," Irving Kristol acted "like Joshua leading the Israelites into Canaan."
In Mr. Heilbrunn's telling, the neoconservatives, once arrived in the Promised Land of political influence, ill-served their hosts. The "high priests of the Reagan coalition," he writes, "almost wrecked" Ronald Reagan's presidency with their "apocalyptic view of the cold war" and their support for Central American anticommunists. By the time they came to play a "sacerdotal role" for George W. Bush, neoconservatives were stuck in cold-warrior mode and created, in Iraq, "the greatest foreign policy disaster since Vietnam."
The neoconservative mentality is, then, for Mr. Heilbrunn, "ineluctably Jewish." Or is it? At times, it appears in his account to be something less well defined -- akin to a kind of disease that might strike anyone. Noting the strong neoconservative views of Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, Patrick Moynihan, William Bennett, John Bolton, Francis Fukuyama and Linda Chavez, Mr. Heilbrunn suggests that neoconservatism is a "virus" that can infect non-Jews too. George W. Bush, by voicing his support for democracy in every nation, became "not the tool of the neoconservatives but a neoconservative in his own right." Nor is the other side of the aisle immune to infection. That none of the Democratic candidates in the presidential campaign has criticized Israel, Mr. Heilbrunn says, "must be counted as a neoconservative success." . . . As neoconservatives have always existed, they will always exist. They "will not disappear," Mr. Heilbrunn laments. "An elite caste, they will simply regroup."
. . . Mr. Heilbrunn is perfectly right to say that, after the Cold War thawed, the mental habits that the neoconservatives had cultivated continued to inform their thinking. But the task of scapegoating requires him to assume that those habits are baleful, that there was no good reason to see the world -- after the Cold War, especially after 9/11 -- as a place of existential struggle or to define American interests beyond the narrow dictates of Realpolitik.
Mr. Heilbrunn is also right to say that at least part of the neoconservative sensibility has been "shaped by the Jewish immigrant experience, by the Holocaust, and by the twentieth-century struggle against totalitarianism." But he fails to acknowledge that such experience and such concerns, far from leading to a distorting resentment or a dangerous "mentality," may have inspired an especially acute appreciation of American exceptionalism and American values. By failing to treat neoconservatism as a movement of ideas, Mr. Heilbrunn reduces it to something worse than caricature. His polemic suffers for it.
According to the "shirt-tail" bio on his publisher's website, the author is one of those people who runs with the big dogs:
JACOB HEILBRUNN writes regularly for The New York Times, Washington Monthly, and National Interest. He is a former member of the Los Angeles Times editorial board and was a senior editor at the New Republic. He lives in Washington, D.C.
Now look again at what he wrote: neocons are "an elite caste" with a dangerous moralistic "mentality" that derives from ethnic experience -- a "virus" that can infect non-Jews . . .
Holy crap! This almost sounds like something Julius Streicher would've written.
On second thought, no "almost" about it! This is The Israel Lobby squared. This is David Duke on meth. This is the Auschwitz mission statement -- presented as serious thought by someone in the big leagues of mainstream punditry and journalism, published in hardback by Random House.
As far as I can tell from a bit of Googling about just now, nobody on the Left (Atrios, Kos, DU) finds this even mildly offensive. If the Dems win this year, people who read this book and did not think there was anything wrong with it will be running things.
Are you bothered by that? I sure am.
Posted by: Mike ||
01/11/2008 12:16 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
George W. Bush, by voicing his support for democracy in every nation, became "not the tool of the neoconservatives but a neoconservative in his own right."
I'm trying to grasp what's wrong with supporting democracy (well, preferably republican government) in every nation.
Anyone else reading Jonah Goldberg's book? Anyone else having a great deal of what we're seeing from the left truly explained for the first time?
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
01/11/2008 13:20 Comments ||
Top||
#3
JACOB HEILBRUNN writes regularly for The New York Times, Washington Monthly, and National Interest. He is a former member of the Los Angeles Times editorial board and was a senior editor at the New Republic. He lives in Washington, D.C.
Heil-brunn, as in heil Hitler? It sounds like this guy has almost single-handedly coined the epithet "neo-con" and is a traitorous collaborator with those who would destroy America. Identifying themselves so vociferously makes the war on terror so much easier.
#6
Jonah just released his book "Liberal Fascism". Just the title has the 'tards in an uproar, but it's reached the top ten on Amazon. It's a much more intellectual book than the 'tards are giving it credit for -- it's exposing the history of "progressivism".
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
01/11/2008 20:22 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I heard Jonah speak on Wilkow today - very interesting and educational. I'm going to pickup the book. Debunks the pop-myth that facism is the polar opposite of communism. He says (w/great logic) how communism, socialism, and facism are all together on the far left spectrum.
#8
What kind of shrewed mind minces words about not wanting free people? It is a shame that these "elite" believe that a government master is so far more morally sound than a republic of individuals.
This is usually the case until their utopia crashes their party in some way and they find that they have left themselves no way out. It starts easy, through "caring" and always ends with hatred and brutality.
The world they want can never, ever be. And when they find things will not work in their parameters, they thrash about. Then they seek even more governmental measures to correct the unintended consequences they created which in turn make government the rule, and human rights an acceptable loss.
Never paying mind to the many states this system is failing at this very moment. socialism is the dominant failure after Islamic governance.
All I can relay to author is I do not have to live in your man made utopia. And I do not plan to. You will follow the path of destitution, your only light the government. And when that burns out, you were nothing. And your children and their children were less for your lack of responsibility.
Every "advanced" civilization thought they held the trump card on morality. That was until their judgment day.
The page has links to the specific points that appear in this piece.
Obstacles in the way of conservative support.
By Mark R. Levin
Theres a reason some of John McCain's conservative supporters avoid discussing his record. They want to talk about his personal story, his position on the surge, his supposed electability. But whenever the rest of his career comes up, the knee-jerk reply is to characterize the inquiries as attacks.
The McCain domestic record is a disaster. To say he fought spending, most particularly earmarks, is to nibble around the edges and miss the heart of the matter. For starters, consider:
McCain-Feingold the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.
McCain-Kennedy the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.
McCain-Lieberman the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases in American history.
McCain-Kennedy-Edwards the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients bill of rights.
McCain-Reimportantion of Drugs a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety (hey Rudy, pay attention, see link).
And McCains stated opposition to the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was largely based on socialist, class-warfare rhetoric tax cuts for the rich, not for the middle class. The public record is full of these statements. Today, he recalls only his insistence on accompanying spending cuts.
As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, McCain was consistently hostile to American enterprise, from media and pharmaceutical companies to technology and energy companies.
McCain also led the Gang of 14, which prevented the Republican leadership in the Senate from mounting a rule change that would have ended the systematic use (actual and threatened) of the filibuster to prevent majority approval of judicial nominees.
And then theres the McCain defense record.
His supporters point to essentially one policy strength, McCains early support for a surge and counterinsurgency. It has now evolved into McCain taking credit for forcing the president to adopt General David Petreauss strategy. Wheres the evidence to support such a claim?
Moreover, Iraq is an important battle in our war against the Islamo-fascist threat. But the war is a global war, and it most certainly includes the continental United States, which, after all, was struck on 9/11. How does McCain fare in that regard?
McCain-ACLU the unprecedented granting of due-process rights to unlawful enemy combatants (terrorists).
McCain has repeatedly called for the immediate closing of Guantanamo Bay and the introduction of al-Qaeda terrorists into our own prisons despite the legal rights they would immediately gain and the burdens of managing such a dangerous population.
While McCain proudly and repeatedly points to his battles with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who had to rebuild the U.S. military and fight a complex war, where was McCain in the lead-up to the war when the military was being dangerously downsized by the Clinton administration and McCains friend, former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen? Where was McCain when the CIA was in desperate need of attention? Also, McCain was apparently in the dark about al-Qaeda like most of Washington, despite a decade of warnings.
My fingers are crossed that at the next debate, either Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney will find a way to address McCains record. (Mike Huckabee wont, as he is apparently in the tank for him.)
#1
NR getting desperate: their boy Romney is on the ropes. Which is not to say that the accusations aren't true - just that they'vwe been out there as public record before. The murky Keating scandal should also have been included.
. . . When George Bush senior cries in public, it's considered moving. Ditto his moist-eyed son. But in fairness, they have tended to appear moved about things apart from themselves, apart from their own predicaments. Mrs. Clinton was weeping about Mrs. Clinton. If a man had uttered Mrs. Clinton's aria--if Mr. Obama had said, "And you know, this is very personal for me . . . as tired as I am . . . against the odds," and gotten choked--they would have laughed him out of town.
The night Mrs. Clinton won, she referred to the crying moment by saying she had now, with the help of New Hampshire, found her voice. After 60 years. "High five, fraudbot" was the reaction of the dizzy children at Wonkette, who had it about right. I suspect Mrs. Clinton was attempting to echo Eleanor Roosevelt, of whom it was famously said that she found her voice late in life, in the coal mines of West Virginia and in her husband's White House.
But one must ask of Mrs. Clinton what one would never ask of Mrs. Roosevelt: Will the new voice have a new accent? She's going down to South Carolina soon. This could get painful.
And if we are to believe the new voice will be a softer, more conciliatory and more engaging one, how to square that with what is going on at HillaryIs44.com, a Web site that is for all intents and purposes a back door to her war room? There you will see that federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald will soon "destroy" Barack Obama in a "scandal" involving an "indicted slumlord" who is Mr. Obama's "friend of 17 years" and with whom Mr. Obama has been involved in "shady deals."
This isn't a new voice, it is the old one, the one we know too well. The item was posted on Thursday, two days after Mrs. Clinton announced her new approach.
Between sobs she is going to try to destroy Mr. Obama. She is going to try to end him. She will pay a price for it--no one likes to see the end of a dream, no one likes a dream killer. But she will pay that price to win, and try to clean up the mess later.
Posted by: Mike ||
01/11/2008 06:29 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
There are signs that Obama's camp recognizes what is coming and is getting ready to respond will stinging veiled shots when Hillary goes negative. Get ready for fireworks.
#2
The fact that this shrew has a chance to be on a ticket for the presidency makes me very afraid for the future of my country. Those that actually support this shrill-cackling thankle thing are truly un-intelligent.
#1
First, the U.S.-jihadist war is entering its final phase; the destruction of al Qaedas strategic capabilities now allows the United States to shift its posture which includes leveraging the Sunni world to finish the job begun in Iraq and enables Washington to begin drawing down its Middle Eastern forces
sheesh.. the war between good and evil is never over. Can't we at least stop for a moment and celebrate the end of this battle?
#2
Again, the OSAMA BIN LADEN I know from the anti-Soviet Afghan War is IRAN-CENTRIC in his "end times/apocalyptic" beliefs, and is quite prepared to die for it - ISLAM AS A GOD-BASED FAITH MUST DE FACTO WIN ITS APOCALYPSE IN IRAN, OR DE FACTO LOSE AND BE DESTROYED FOREVER [AS A FALSE FAITH]. OSAMA > NO US INVASION OF IRAN MEANS THE ISLAMIST WAR WILL GO ON FOREVER.
#1
This looks like a fabulous resource for anyone wounded (including PTSD!) in the service of the U.S., in the current war or previous ones. There are links for veterans to inform them of their rights and entitlements for treatment. There's even a place for employers who want to hire veterans.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
. . . When George Bush senior cries in public, it's considered moving. Ditto his moist-eyed son. But in fairness, they have tended to appear moved about things apart from themselves, apart from their own predicaments. Mrs. Clinton was weeping about Mrs. Clinton. If a man had uttered Mrs. Clinton's aria--if Mr. Obama had said, "And you know, this is very personal for me . . . as tired as I am . . . against the odds," and gotten choked--they would have laughed him out of town.
