Tag Archives: transportation

Democrats Want Election Fraud

Found in the Chicago Defender:

With the presidential race in full swing, the U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering a case that could have a huge impact on the nation’s electoral system forever. It revolves around an Indiana statue that requires voters to show current state issued photo identification when they cast their ballots. Last Election Day, 61-year-old Valerie Williams attempted to vote in the lobby of her retirement home as she had the past two elections.

She and 31 others affiliated with the case [were not allowed to vote after failing to provide photo ID]. Most failed to comply with the law because they lacked the transportation to get to the local voting office to convert their provisional ballots into actual votes or couldn’t afford state issued identification. They represent as much as 12 percent of all voters, a disproportionate number of them elderly, poor, minorities or disable, who do not have government-issued photo identification.

Huh? I admit it’s sad that people are turned away from polls when people there could verify their identity. Maybe the law could allow for group living facilities which have already verified ID can speak for their members… but that gets into a whole ‘nother can of worms and allows further loopholes for fraud. Maybe states should have a cheap or free ID for those who don’t drive (Like California, I got my first official ID, which was not a drivers license, at 14 for less than 20 dollars).

When the elections can hinge on as few as 100 votes such as Florida in 2000, each vote counts. While you are worrying about disenfranchising (a big word which is used as a bugbear in our fearful society) the poor and elderly (popular poster-children of the bugbear bearing social activists). I’m worried about disenfranchising (see, I can use it too) myself and the millions of other voters who have worked hard and taken the appropriate steps to ensure I have proper identification necessary to function in this society. It is a slight requirement. We are aware of the need and we have a whole year, or two, to get it before needing it for the election.

You may not be aware of the severity of the issue: In Seattle, WA, hundreds of votes are entered by people all listing the Postal Office as their “home”. The assumption is their transients, but there is no proof of that. Any Joe or Sally with nefarious intent could easily register and vote, even though it is against the law to misrepresent your address on voter registration. The difficulty lies in verifying the address of the voter.

Requiring ID puts additional responsibility on the voter, but we do not live in a society where all things are given to us. Instead, we are given reasonable requirements and then allowed to do as we please.

Voter ID is a simple and effective way to mitigate the issue of voter fraud. Fraud disenfranchises everybody, lessening the effectiveness of each and every one of our votes.

Apparently it’s a GOP issue. The Democrats don’t want to stop any fraudsters, phonies, gangs, or assorted nefarious election scammers from exercising their desire to break the law and disenfranchise all of us law-abiding citizens. It’s those nasty Republicans who want to safe-guard the election for us average Joe’s and Jane’s by requiring reasonable levels of identity security into the process.

See my previous post on this for my solution to electronic voting, vote fraud, and voter ID.

Ron Paul?

A friend of mine supports Ron Paul for president. Admittedly, his libertarian views are very appealing to many people feeling as though the Republican mainstream has hung them out to dry. However, there are deep issues that I have with Ron Paul, very deep issues.

My friend and I got into a discussion regarding Ron Paul, and they have graciously given me permission to post it here:

Matthew:

Please tell me you only joined the group supporting Ron Paul as a joke.

Friend:

No, I wasn’t joking. Why should I? Go ahead and convince me! =] I’m game.

Matthew:

His political platform is mostly appealing, I do agree with that. However, he supports pulling us out of a war that, regardless of whether you agree with the necessity of the war or no, you must understand to pull out is to give a victory to an enemy who will not accept our defeat graciously but who will next bring the war to our doorstep again. His consistency on the issues he is most vocal about on the campaign trail is also less than stellar, with a marked propensity for bringing “pork” projects to his district.

Finally, and I know he himself does not espouse these beliefs, but white supremacists have jumped on his campaign, contributing money and support. Ron Paul has not repudiated these supporters or returned their money or prevented their support.

He is not a leader in the sense America needs. And while the the pickings are few in the field, I think of all the candidates running with an (R) after their name, Paul is least qualified.

Friend:

We are in a war that can’t be won. Don’t you remember that Bush declared victory over 4 years ago? Since then, 3,735 American soldiers have lost their lives. If that is victory, then we can’t win this war.

Do you remember Vietnam? We lost that war, and had the common sense to get out of there, (although it wasn’t until we lost 58,000 of our guys) and now? We trade with them! Our relations with Vietnam are as they should be with any country!

If a forthcoming attack is your concern, think about this. When Ron Paul talks about bringing our troops home, he’s talking about bringing home ALL of the troops from over 700 military bases, in over 160 different countries, all over the world. We would not no longer be growing resentment in any of these countries, who all deserve, as much as we do, to run their countries how the want, and not have a bigger, more powerful government come and tell them how to live. How would you feel if China or Russia came over here, and built 15 military bases or more, and started telling us how to run our lives? Would you sit back, and let them? I wouldn’t… I would do everything in my power, (which isn’t much=]) to stop them!

So, who would you stand behind for the next president of the US?

Matthew:

First, what about the war we are currently in is failing so very badly that there is no way the war can be one? Have you followed the news beyond what has been force-fed us by the media? Read the post here to see one side of the new growth of freedom in Baghdad. Even the New York Times, a paper arguably more invested than any other in our defeat in Iraq, last week published on the front page an article telling of the good that is occurring there.

We lost Vietnam because the politicians (the revered but Clintonesque JFK and the worst president in history Lindon Baines Johnson) would not allow the military to prosecute the war as it needed to be. The president selected the military targets, micromanaging far beyond what any true and wise leader would have or should have done. There was a small but vocal contingent at home which proclaimed the injustice of the war, getting their faces (and other body parts) smeared all over the evening news as our country fought for it’s soul. Public figures such as Jane Fonda openly consorted with the enemy while our soldiers, not allowed to fight as they should have, were captured and imprisoned and tortured. We still do not know the fate of many of those imprisoned, as the Vietnamese Communists who gained power through the pride and ineptitude of our leaders at the time, persecuting and killing many of their own countrymen as well as our servicemen.

Comparing that just but unjustly-prosecuted war with the conflict we are currently in, the times when the current was going poorly coincide with times when the military leadership has taken away responsibility and power from their field-level commanders, much as in the Vietnam war. One of the the reasons freedom from tyranny is succeeding right now and we are experiencing success in our military operations is that the generals are giving direction and responsibility and allowing the people under them to work and decide and wage their battles as they know best.

And regarding the justice of the war. Who do you believe attacked us in 1992, attempting to topple the trade towers? And again in 2001? The same people made both attempts. And regarding specifically the portion of the conflict in Iraq, yes, we have not found weapons of mass destruction. But operating on the intelligence we had then, all the leaders, not just Bush, not just Republicans, not just ‘hawks’, and not just Americans, but the UN security council (regardless of the morality of their position) supported us in our use of force to depose Saddam Hussein and protect the world from any furtherance of his tyranny, either on his own people or on others through his state-sponsoring of terrorists and their weapons systems. Important to remember in this is that while we have not found any actual WMDs we have not found evidence that they were not or never there. Instead, the consensus is that they were trucked across the border to Syria and Iran, both countries with despotic governments who are not shy about broadcasting their intentions of world domination by their religion by their leadership.

As far as defense goes. The worst defense is the kind where all your assets are kept close by. With the world getting “smaller” as technology and transportation move more and more people further and further more and more quickly, and with weapons capable of striking anyplace from anywhere in mere hours, being “on-site” and in the region of conflict is a much more effective defense.

Regarding the bad feelings we are breeding by our presence in the regions. First, America is the only superpower in the history of the world which has neither forced it’s culture upon those it is around as superior, nor have we failed to relinquish sovereign control of the nations we’ve fought in to legitimate governments of those nations in most cases (several islands in the Pacific being the only exceptions to that). Instead, we fight alongside indigent warriors to free their nations, then we spend billions upon billions of dollars to shore up those nations economies and social structures. The hotbeds of hatred spring up wherever they will regardless of our presence. And to remove from the area would only grant unwelcome power to an unworthy underclass of malcontents and misfits.

I am not sure who I’m supporting for the nomination. I will support any Republican nominee in the main presidential race because: 1, they are all and each morally and pragmatically superior to any of the Democrat nominees, and 2, third party candidates are never a viable option except to take votes away from one of the two main party’s candidate (yes, liberal third partiers… keep up the good work, grin).

As far as the nominees, I’m becoming more and more convinced that Rudy is bad news, and his promises to set up conservative judges are likely to be empty. Romney, I think most of his detractors are picking at straws in their critiques of him, but I do not think I’ll vote for him in the nomination for his lack of history to his moral beliefs regarding abortion. Thompson is (little) talk and I think he’ll fade away soon. Huckabee looks good but I’ve heard those close to him call him a pro-life liberal. I think he’d make an excellent VP if given a position of counsel and some authority. I’m not sold on him.

Of all these, I think Huckabee, if he shows strength continuing into these upcoming primaries, is my preferred choice, pending a bit more investigation.

We didn’t continue the conversation further mainly due to busy-ness.

Huckabee is looking to be less and less of a man I’d want to lead this country. He’d make an admirable vice-president, but his fiscal and many of his social programs are not good. He does not see that the best way to help people is to remove all government-sponsored assistance and as much government-required hindrance and and encourage as much private assistance as possible.

Instead his proposals include large amounts of money to be given to people by the government. Government money is never free and it always comes with strings. And it costs you and me. Why not just take less to start with?

But Ron Paul is the last person this nation needs. He does not appreciate the necessity of remaining in Iraq to bring it to a place of stability. A process in which much progress has already been made. He is not a man of his word.

Women Who Won’t Have Babies

Tony Vernelli will not have children, she has been sterilized, medically, by choice, her choice.

She thinks having children is selfish of her, because each child who is born:

“uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population.”

After having her first child aborted, her husband (she is now divorced) had a vasectomy (at 25) but her doctors would not perform a permanent sterilization on her, saying she’d eventually want children. She was sure sure she wouldn’t and persisted until she found a surgeon willing to perform a permanent sterilization. She was 27.

Are the lies of the environmentalists so pernicious that this is what they’ll do to protect the earth? Apparently, the answer is yes.

Granted this is an extreme case. But how many women persist on hormone-based contraceptives until it is too late in their lives and as they try to have children they find they can’t? And in the realm of potentials: what if her children were to be the next great scientist or artist, or even if they weren’t, normally people change people’s lives forever by simply loving them. You don’t have to be famous to be worthwhile.

One of the superiorities of the Christian world-view is that to a Christian each and every human life is precious and worthwhile, regardless of it’s circumstances. It is this way because God created each and every human life in His image, giving us an unique spirit and an eternal nature in addition to an earthly body.

Further, the lies of the environmentalists are just that: lies. There is not a problem of overcrowding. We are throwing away grain and other foods wastefully based on government regulation and price fixing. We raise some cattle for food and some for leather, but rarely do we raise the same cow for both. With technology and plenty we have become wasteful and lazy. But technology has also allowed us to live closer together, and farther away from where we work. Transportation bring fresh food from wherever it is to wherever it is needed. There are vast tracts of undeveloped land, and yes, all the people in the world can still fit in a good-sized city with elbow room, or in a state with house and yard each.

Tony is a sick individual who has believed lies and has not sought to truth. That is sad.

Update: Read the Pachyderm’s take.

Update: Stand To Reason and James Lileks further the argument. A gem from Lileks on tolerance:

She had the awful thing put away, and now she and her husband enjoy hiking and vacations . . . in other countries, accessed via jets. But: “We feel we can have one long-haul flight a year, as we are vegan and childless.” She expresses frustration that other people are unable to accept her decision. I suspect she means “my mum” by “other people,” and I suspect she confuses “acceptance” with “full-throated endorsement.”

Update and Bumped: Investors Business Daily has this to say:

(Late economist Julian) Simon showed that “the ultimate resource is people — skilled, spirited and hopeful people who will exert their wills and imaginations for their own benefit, and inevitably they will benefit not only themselves but the rest of us as well.”

If not for their fanatical parents, who are replacing the supposedly dusty old codes of conduct associated with traditional religion with a warped new morality, the children of the two British couples might have been such people.

Congestion: Hell On Wheels – Part II

Drew Carey has some ideas on how to improve transportation. One of them includes naming a freeway after himself. How? Just buy it.

Reason.tv host Drew Carey examines the costs and consequences of traffic jams and explores several solutions that can get our roads moving. How does a speedy trip on the “Drew Carey Freeway” sound? Plus, one lucky commuter gets a helicopter ride to work, courtesy of Drew.

So if we go. Click here to watch

Along a similar veign… 

While roads and the highway system will never be completely privatized, what will become of gas tax receipts? The taxes were levied to pay for road maintenance and construction. Today, they are increasingly used to supplement non-transportation projects such as health care, welfare, etc.

When the burden of road maintenance and construction on public entities are reduced, are drivers going to apathetically acquiesce to the diversion of transportation dollars to non-transportation causes simply because gas taxes have always been charged?

Of course, it could be a non-issue because we might all have electric vehicles by that time. Not likely though.

Congestion: Hell On Wheels – Part I

This article was posted by twisted1ogic a few days ago, but we were having difficulty getting the video to work. We’ve fixed it now and I’ve bumped it up.
~matthew

Is there any hope to the increasing congestion that plagues so many of us? Is congestion a weapon in the hand of progressives to push commuters from the suburbs into high-density housing communities centered around mass transit venues.

I’m not into the conspiracy theories, but read about Washington state’s Sound Transit, a monolithic monster of a light rail program that is a decade behind schedule and asking for a tax increase to pay for cost overruns, $10 billion of them. That’s a “1” with ten “0” behind it… a lot of overrun.

Some people like the idea of the rail, but others have the impression it is going down. One columnist asks:

If we really want to encourage a significant increase in public transportation usage, why would anybody in their right mind spend tens of billions on a light rail system that only has 12 stops, when we can expand a bus system that already has 9,141 stops and can serve many, many more people for a fraction of the price?

Duh.

Some news personalities are going to vote for it because they think it looks pretty. But what else should we expect when reducing congestion is not a priority for the state’s transportation department. Anything could look pretty to the poor souls sucking car fumes in multiple-hour commutes.