Let's see, I need ID to go on an airplane. I need ID to get into an office building. I need ID to buy a beer at Yankee Stadium. I need to have my ID (driver's license) when driving a car or renting a car.
There is no legitimate reason to be opposed to requiring a valid ID to vote.
The only reasons to oppose it seem to be to encourage voter fraud and voting by illegals.
Voter ID and Illegal Aliens
August 20, 2010 4:24 PM
By Hans A. von Spakovsky
The latest Rasmussen poll on voter ID is sure to frustrate liberal advocacy organizations like the NAACP and the League of Women Voters that oppose commonsense proposals to ensure the integrity of our election process. They have been waging a losing litigation battle against states to try to prevent them from implementing photo ID requirements.
Rasmussen reports that an overwhelming majority of likely voters (82 percent) believe all voters should show photo ID before they are allowed to vote (that includes a majority in every demographic group). Only 14 percent disagree. This is the highest level of support for photo ID since Rasmussen started polling the question in 2006.
On a related issue, the majority of voters said ballots should be printed only in English. The Justice Department, by contrast, has threatened to sue Cuyahoga County, Ohio, unless it prints ballots in Spanish.
And 56 percent of voters oppose the Justice Department’s lawsuit against Arizona over its immigration law. In fact, 54 percent think Eric Holder should be spending his time suing sanctuary cities, something the Justice Department has specifically said it will not do.
A majority (59 percent) also hope that their own states will pass a law similar to Arizona’s, which helps explain why CNS is reporting that 22 states “are now in the process of drafting or seeking to pass legislation similar to Arizona’s law against illegal immigration.”
Forcing the Justice Department to wage litigation battles in 22 states would be a good tactic both legally and politically. There is no doubt that it would lead to numerous losses by Justice in court decisions completely contrary to the legally dubious decision issued by the Arizona judge. Politically, it would help illustrate the complete bankruptcy of the Obama administration’s enforcement policy to citizens in every state.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Dumbass Judge in Somali Piracy Case
Judge: Somali Pirates Who Fired on U.S. Navy Are Not Really Pirates
August 20, 2010 7:16 PM
By Andy McCarthy
Putting federal judges in charge of national security — what could go wrong?
Federal judge Raymond A. Jackson has dismissed piracy charges against six Somali men who are alleged to have fired on U.S. naval warships on the Indian Ocean. Why? Because the attacks failed to ravage our vessels — indeed, they were captured and brought to Judge Jackson’s civilian court in Virginia. According to Judge Jackson (appointed to the bench by President Clinton in 1993), to be prosecuted for piracy (under Section 1651 of the federal penal code), pirates have to succeed in carrying out a robbery on the high seas. If they try but we capture them, they can’t be charged.
Makes perfect sense, right?
The judge’s daylight to make mischief here is caused by Congress’s definition of piracy. Rather than spell out what sorts of acts (and attempts, and conspiracies) constitute piracy, Congress referred to “the crime of piracy as defined by the law of nations.” The judge looked at a Supreme Court case from 1820 (United States v. Smith) that involved robbery on the high seas, in which the Court ruled that such a robbery fit the law of nations concept of piracy. But that doesn’t mean it was the only kind of forcible act that would fit the concept — much less that because those pirates happened to succeed, pirates who try but fail aren’t pirates.
The really galling thing here, though, is how politically willful the courts have become. When they want to create a new offense that is not actually recognized by American law, they claim to find it in … the law of nations. So, for example, the Ninth Circuit attempted a few years back to claim that “arbitrary arrest and detention” was actionable under its evolving understanding of this amorphous international law concept. But now attacks on international waters — which is one of the few matters for which there is any reason to have a “law of nations” — are not piracy.
Find the pearls of Judge Jackson’s wisdom at Steve Emerson’s Investigative Project on Terrorism.
August 20, 2010 7:16 PM
By Andy McCarthy
Putting federal judges in charge of national security — what could go wrong?
Federal judge Raymond A. Jackson has dismissed piracy charges against six Somali men who are alleged to have fired on U.S. naval warships on the Indian Ocean. Why? Because the attacks failed to ravage our vessels — indeed, they were captured and brought to Judge Jackson’s civilian court in Virginia. According to Judge Jackson (appointed to the bench by President Clinton in 1993), to be prosecuted for piracy (under Section 1651 of the federal penal code), pirates have to succeed in carrying out a robbery on the high seas. If they try but we capture them, they can’t be charged.
Makes perfect sense, right?
The judge’s daylight to make mischief here is caused by Congress’s definition of piracy. Rather than spell out what sorts of acts (and attempts, and conspiracies) constitute piracy, Congress referred to “the crime of piracy as defined by the law of nations.” The judge looked at a Supreme Court case from 1820 (United States v. Smith) that involved robbery on the high seas, in which the Court ruled that such a robbery fit the law of nations concept of piracy. But that doesn’t mean it was the only kind of forcible act that would fit the concept — much less that because those pirates happened to succeed, pirates who try but fail aren’t pirates.
The really galling thing here, though, is how politically willful the courts have become. When they want to create a new offense that is not actually recognized by American law, they claim to find it in … the law of nations. So, for example, the Ninth Circuit attempted a few years back to claim that “arbitrary arrest and detention” was actionable under its evolving understanding of this amorphous international law concept. But now attacks on international waters — which is one of the few matters for which there is any reason to have a “law of nations” — are not piracy.
Find the pearls of Judge Jackson’s wisdom at Steve Emerson’s Investigative Project on Terrorism.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Polls & T-Shirts
Polls Show Broad Unpopularity for Obama August 18, 2010
By Daniel Foster
President Obama continues his skid in the Gallup daily tracking poll, sinking to a 41/52 approval-disapproval split, both new records. It is now not unrealistic that he could slide into the 30s before midterms, especially considering he is continuing to bleed moderates/independents at an alarming rate.
The Real Clear Politics opinion poll aggregate shows President Obama with an average 45.3/50.7 approval/disapproval split.
Bush Beats Obama in T-Shirt Poll August 18, 2010
By Jack Fowler
Interesting article in today’s Boston Globe on our vacationing president, “Vineyard buzzes less for Obamas’ second visit.” How much less? This much:
One barometer of the plunge in excitement has been the sale of Obama-themed T-shirts, which designers had been banking on after the craze of last year. Clothing labeled with the president’s name sold by the thousands, helping to salvage a tough economic year for the island.
But this year’s T-shirt sales are much less brisk, merchants say.
“Last year, Obama gave you goose bumps, but I don’t think you’re going to see that this year,” said Alex McCluskey, co-owner of the Locker Room, who sold more than 4,000 “I vacationed with Obama’’ T-shirts last year. But so far this year, he said, his hot item is T-shirts of former President Bush asking, “Miss me yet?”
By Daniel Foster
President Obama continues his skid in the Gallup daily tracking poll, sinking to a 41/52 approval-disapproval split, both new records. It is now not unrealistic that he could slide into the 30s before midterms, especially considering he is continuing to bleed moderates/independents at an alarming rate.
The Real Clear Politics opinion poll aggregate shows President Obama with an average 45.3/50.7 approval/disapproval split.
Bush Beats Obama in T-Shirt Poll August 18, 2010
By Jack Fowler
Interesting article in today’s Boston Globe on our vacationing president, “Vineyard buzzes less for Obamas’ second visit.” How much less? This much:
One barometer of the plunge in excitement has been the sale of Obama-themed T-shirts, which designers had been banking on after the craze of last year. Clothing labeled with the president’s name sold by the thousands, helping to salvage a tough economic year for the island.
But this year’s T-shirt sales are much less brisk, merchants say.
“Last year, Obama gave you goose bumps, but I don’t think you’re going to see that this year,” said Alex McCluskey, co-owner of the Locker Room, who sold more than 4,000 “I vacationed with Obama’’ T-shirts last year. But so far this year, he said, his hot item is T-shirts of former President Bush asking, “Miss me yet?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
