Archive for August, 2010
Voting: the right to be heard
Written by Aaron Rodriguez
Monday, 09 August 2010 20:44
No Comments

A Free Society is a Voting Society

Last week, Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen launched a task force to battle against voter fraud.  But talk of task forces has resurrected a partisan dispute between liberals and conservatives.

It was Dwight Eisenhower that said “The future of the republic is in the hands of the American voter.”  The notion is that our republic, a system of sending representatives in our likeness to do our bidding, is built almost entirely upon what happens at the ballot box.  If true, it follows that voting should be protected carefully. But protecting our right encompasses more than voting freely, but voting legally.

Would Voter ID Place Burdens on the Poor?

One source cited that nearly 6% of people in the U.S. have no form of photo ID, most of them being poor.  Would this cause a problem for poor folks? Not if they take voting as seriously as buying a case of beer.

I’ve been in a lot of poverty-stricken homes, and I have yet to find someone so poor that they couldn’t get their hands on a case of beer.  If you can buy a case of beer, then you can afford a photo ID. More to the point, the Indiana Supreme Court stated that their voter ID law didn’t impose any substantive obstacles for the poor.  In fact, in the five years since the law had passed, not a single person, poor or otherwise, had come forth claiming to be disenfranchised.

Voter Fraud in 2004

To the liberal mind, the incidents of voter fraud are largely inconsequential.  To them, Republicans make voter ID an issue to win elections by targeting the poor and elderly.  But voter fraud is not inconsequential.

In the 2004 election, the Milwaukee Police Department found that Milwaukee residents cast more ballots than the number of actual residents living in Milwaukee.  Multiple investigations ensued in order to explain these irregularities.  The Special Investigations Unit (SIU) discovered that some absentee ballots were cast by non-residents, out-of-state college students were voting illegally at university campuses, and that felons were not only voting, but working at the polling places.

The SIU concluded that on-site registration and voting without identification provided no deterrent to “double voting.”  They said that “Michael A. Smith” could vote as Michael Smith, Mickey Smith, and M.A. Smith, and all three votes would count.  And if they were challenged, it would take time to investigate allowing the votes to be cast and recorded.

Voter Fraud in 2008

Back in 200o, Witkowiak lost an election to Angel Sanchez by a mere 17 votes.  At the time, Witkowiak discovered that nearly 200 people that registered to vote didn’t exist.  Witkowiak ran again in 2008 winning the election.  This time, however, he sent out literature to the registered voters introducing himself.  But he discovered that 80 of the 400 postcards came back undeliverable, and 75 of the voters didn’t exist.

The voters didn’t exist, but voter fraud certainly does.  Recently, Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen has charged 5 Wisconsin residents with criminal counts of voter fraud from the presidential election of 2008.  Two of them worked for ACORN registering themselves to vote multiple times.

Conclusion

Those who think that voter fraud is inconsequential point to the few cases on the books where voter fraud has been prosecuted.  However, few cases emerge because there is no regulatory system in place such as a task force to both deter and apprehend fraudulent voters.

Clearly, in localized elections where turnout rates typically number in the hundreds, 17 votes can make a world of difference.  If voter fraud is inconsequential, then all that is lost is a task force that isn’t necessary.  But if voter fraud makes a difference, then a task force will protect what President Eisenhower called the future of our republic.


 
Trying to Repeal the 14th Amendment? What is the GOP Thinking?
Written by Aaron Rodriguez
Sunday, 08 August 2010 22:37
No Comments


Apparently, some GOP senators are considering the repeal of the 14th amendment (or parts of it) as a way of stemming illegal immigration.  Section 1 of the 14th amendment reads,


“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


This is a problem for the GOP if they let it get out of hand.  First problem is that it involves children, infants to be more precise.  Regardless of parental intent, the GOP will lose the PR battle as it could easily be characterized as a repeal of babies.

Second, any time Congress wishes to change the U.S. Constitution, it requires a constitutional amendment of 2/3 vote.  Republicans don’t have a simple majority let alone enough votes to pass a constitutional amendment.  If they try to repeal the 14th amendment, it will be seen as a political ploy to rile up the conservative base.  And for what?  How conservative is it to change the Constitution when there are other effective options to stifle illegal immigration.  How about focusing on the border rather than changing the currently unchangeable.

And third, the GOP is chancing a short-term gain for a long-term loss.  Right now, blacks vote democrat from 85% to 90% of the time.  There is a multi-faceted explanation for this, but now is not the time.  By trying to repeal the 14th amendment, the GOP will risk divorcing themselves from the Hispanic community permanently, which will change the Grand Old Party to the Grand Extinct Party, literally.

What are these people thinking?

 
Obama’s Support from Hispanics Slipping
Written by Aaron Rodriguez
Sunday, 01 August 2010 20:54
2 Comments

“President Barack Obama’s once solid support among Hispanics is showing a few cracks, a troubling sign for Democrats desperate to get this critical constituency excited about helping the party hold onto Congress this fall.

Hispanics still overwhelmingly favor the Democratic Party over the GOP, and a majority still think Obama is doing a good job, according to an Associated Press-Univision poll of more than 1,500 Hispanics.

But the survey, also sponsored by The Nielsen Company and Stanford University, shows Obama gets only lukewarm ratings on issues important to Hispanics — and that could bode poorly for the president and his party.

For a group that supported Obama so heavily in 2008 and in his first year in office, only 43 percent of Hispanics surveyed said Obama is adequately addressing their needs, with the economy a major concern. Another 32 percent were uncertain, while 21 percent said he’d done a poor job.”

Although I agree that Hispanic support for Obama is dropping much like the rest of the populous, I’m somewhat disheartened by the fact that Obama has done absolutely nothing for the Hispanic community in the two years he’s been in office.  NOTHING!

What Obama and Democrats fail to understand is that there are many Hispanics in this country that agree that securing the boarder is a top priority.  For Obama to delay getting troops on the boarder illustrates his lack of concern for the violence spilling over into the border states.