Who Can Be Against Preventing Voter Fraud?

The Wall Street Journal had two pieces today on the Supreme Court that answer the question "who's against preventing voter fraud?"

The first article mentions the usual suspects:

Those opposing the Indiana statute, including the ACLU, Acorn, the Brennan Center and other liberal activist groups argued that ID laws impose an undue burden and disenfranchise some voters...

The dissenting opinion, written by Justice David Souter and joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Justice Stephen Breyer dissented separately)...

No surprises there. The second article brings in Barak Obama ("...the most vociferous Congressional critic of such laws") and his special relationship with the aforementioned activist group Acorn:

Acorn's efforts to register voters have been scandal-prone. St. Louis, Mo., officials found that in 2006 over 1,000 addresses listed on its registrations didn't exist. "We met twice with Acorn before their drive, but our requests completely fell by the wayside," said Democrat Matt Potter, the city's deputy elections director. Later, federal authorities indicted eight of the group's local workers. One of the eight pleaded guilty last month.

In Seattle, local officials invalidated 1,762 Acorn registrations. Felony charges were filed against seven of its workers, some of whom have criminal records. Prosecutors say Acorn's oversight of its workers was virtually nonexistent. To avoid prosecution, Acorn agreed to pay $25,000 in restitution.

Acorn later invited Mr. Obama to help train its staff; Mr. Obama would also sit on the board of the Woods Fund for Chicago, which frequently gave this group grants.

Preventing voter fraud is so common sense that even Justice Steven broke with his liberal jurors:

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, replied that such burdens are limited to a small percentage of the population and are offset by the benefit of reducing fraud. Furthermore, he noted, the law accommodates indigent voters or anyone who shows up on Election Day without proper ID by allowing provisional ballots to be cast. Those votes are counted if the voter can produce valid identification within 10 days of the election.

"For most voters who need [photo IDs], the inconvenience of making a trip to the [Bureau of Motor Vehicles], gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting," writes Justice Stevens.

Seems pretty common sense to me to protect the integrity of democratic elections. Now that we know "who's against preventing voter fraud", we need to understand more about "why they are against preventing voter fraud". Looking into Obama's connections to a group that commits voter fraud as a regular practice is a good start. Maybe somebody will ask him.

Obama's Chickens Coming to Roost

The North Carolina GOP aired an ad tying local Democrat candidates with the Reverend Wright. John McCain has denounced the ad. It seems pretty tame to me. You don't have to be very creative to think of a whole lot worse. Powerlineblog has posted a series of MP3's of unrepentant terrorists and Obama aquaintances Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn talking about revolution, the future of revolution, strategies to bring revolution, bringing "America to her knees" ...(yawn). Compounding the problem for Obama is these recordings are from some sort of SDS reunion from as recent as 2007, not when the Senator was 8 years old.

Depending on how close and "friendly" their relationship is, then compromising photos may follow. If that happens someone will certainly ask for Senator Obama's opinion on Ms. Dohrn's quote on the Manson Family murders of Sharon Tate and others:

"Dig it. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into a victim's stomach! Wild!"

I don't think he'll settle that question with "just let me eat my waffle" or "c'mon Katie, I was only 8 years old".

It appears Obama's chickens might be coming home to roost.

What might save him in the primaries is Hillary's connection to the Weatherman. Her husband pardoned members Susan Rosenberg and Linda Sue Evans, shortly before leaving office in January 2001. Do you think they are kicking themselves for that move? It would be nice to know if those two were in attendance at the reunion mentioned above.

I not only think it is fair to saddle Obama with the Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers, I think it is fair to pin the radicals on anyone who supports Obama for Commander in Chief. On second thought, don't pin it, just slap it on their back like a Post-It-Note that says "Kick Me" as you pass in the hallway and say "Hey, Buddy!" Come to think of it, maybe that's what McCain is doing?

Obama has not distanced himself from these characters. In fact, with the Reverend Wright, Obama said "I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me...". Republicans should tell every Democrat politician down the line, that if you support Obama to be the leader of this nation, be prepared to defend his relationship with the Reverend Wright and The Weatherman. President Truman said "The Buck Stops Here". Think of this as the new trickle down.

Obama, the Terrorist, and the Klan

Steve Chapman wrote a good piece in today's Chicago Tribune about Barak Obama's relationship to an unrepentant terrorist. Here, he gets to the main issues of Obama's moral equivalence and the double standard of his supporters in the media:

"Would Obama be friendly with someone who actually bombed abortion clinics and defends that conduct? Not likely. But he is friendly with William Ayers, a leader of the radical Weather Underground, which in the 1970s carried out numerous bombings, including one inside the U.S. Capitol".

The point lost on Senator Obama is that Mr. Ayers still defends his acts of 40 years ago.

Mr. Chapman continues:

"It's hard to imagine he would be so indulgent if we learned that John McCain had a long association with a former Klansman who used to terrorize African-Americans. Obama's conduct exposes a moral blind spot about these onetime terrorists, who get a pass because they a) fall on the left end of the spectrum and b) haven't planted any bombs lately".

Good points and hard to argue with - but I will. I'm not arguing the conclusions. I am arguing against the example.

I've seen variations of the "What if McCain befriended Klan'ers" example elsewhere and for other issues. The Reverend Wright debacle, for instance. My question is why does the far right always get lumped together with the KKK or Nazi's? As one travels to the left you really do run into real communists. You also ran into groups like The Weatherman, the SLA, Black Panthers...You can still find ELF, FALN, FARC, Shining Path ...When one travels right do we find actual Nazi's and the Ku Klux Klan? Do we find other groups who share their racial world view? Is it even accurate to call these groups "far right"?

The implication in using the Nazis and Ku Klux Klan as examples is that racism comes from the far right. That's why liberals use those examples. It is my observation that it is conservatives who now believe in a color-blind society and individual liberty, while liberals believe in multiculturalism, diversity (with no clear definition of either) and group rights. Mr. Chapman should not concede these points.

Tax Cuts = Spending

Yesterday I caught a few moments of Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer. His guest was Howard Dean. I quote from memory:

"John McCain has proposed $80 billion in new spending - basically tax cuts - and has no way of paying for them".

What is interesting is Dean didn't correct himself in mid-sentence. He clarified himself. Tax cuts = spending.

Revealing mind set on who's money Dean thinks we are talking about. Is it the tax payer's or the government's money?

Benefit of the Doubt

Earlier I was linked to an article that was questioning the ongoing significance of Obama's minister ("sounding board", "mentor", "campaign adviser" ...). A couple of the those posting comments asked readers to give Obama the "benefit of the doubt". I did.

I gave Obama the "benefit of the doubt" when he decided not to wear an American flag on his lapel. I gave Obama the "benefit of the doubt" when he didn't put his hand over his heart for the National Anthem. I gave Obama he "benefit of the doubt" when his wife said it was the first time in her adult life she was proud of her country. At some point, each of us needs to decide when the question is no longer in doubt, but a real issue. His wife's college thesis on race would have been unremarkable, were it not for her comments 20 years later that seem to confirm her thinking. Obama's racist and anti-American minister would have become an issue regardless of Obama's efforts to distance himself from him after so many years. But, does this explain Obama's earlier decision not to wear the American flag on his lapel, etc...? At some point all these dots start to connect. When will his supports stop giving him the "benefit of the doubt"?