Voter Fraud

Well, once again, my post on public education will be delayed. I sat down to write it this morning, but during my daily blog perusals I found this little gem. (H/T Mark Finkelstein) As if I already didn’t have enough reason to loathe illegal aliens and their presence in this country, usurpation of our schools, running up tabs at hospitals that are passed along to us through higher medical and insurance costs, now it turns out that there is concrete proof they register to vote. As Finkelstein points out, this has been known for some time, but for some reason (gee, I wonder why) it has never garnered much media attention.

I’m sure that I am not the only one that has long suspected this but was unaware of this proof for more than three years. I do however remember being 15 and going to the DMV to get my learning permit and the DMV office in little Montgomery County, NC was full of Spanish-speaking individuals. I remember the DMV Deputy or whatever they are called having a very difficult time in speaking to them and getting answers to her questions. I asked my dad how they could pass driving tests and get driver’s licenses if they didn’t speak English. I don’t remember his answer, but I am pretty sure it wasn’t pleasant.

But back to this newly revisited revelation, let’s do a little math. Eight of the 19 hijackers were registered to vote. That’s slightly higher than 40%. If memory serves, all were here illegally one way or another, whether it was that they came here illegally or overstayed a legal visa. (I could be wrong on that, but it’s close to 100%). So, 40% of these illegal residents were registered to vote. Now, estimates for the total number of illegal aliens in the U.S. vary widely depending on who is giving those estimates. I’ve heard 8, 12, 20 and even 40+ MILLION. Who knows really? But let’s just say there are 20 million illegal residents in the U.S. I am not going to guess what percentage of them can vote, but as anyone born here is “legal”, we’ll assume that a lot of the children of these illegal residents are not counted in the 20 million, meaning that most of the 20 million are the adults. For the heck of it we will say 15 million are voting age. One would think that illegal residents who are here for jobs and money instead of blowing things up would be more likely to have driver’s licenses because they would need to get around for their jobs. So we will say that 60% of this number has a driver’s license and is thus eligible to vote under the Motor-Voter (Fraud) Act. 60% of 15 million is….9 million. Wow, NINE MILLION (by some extremely fuzzy math) illegal voters. Does that sound like a lot to you? It does to me. Let’s see just how much that is.

The Census website provides estimates of state populations. We’ll go with the July 1, 2005 population estimates. Nine million is more than the population of EVERY state in the U.S. with the exception of the following: California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas. Now, keep in mind, this is the TOTAL population of these states. The nine million figure is the estimates registered to vote population. That means there are potentially more registered-to-vote illegal aliens than there are people in 42 of the 50 states. Scary, eh?

And who do you think these illegals vote for, assuming that in addition to being registered that they actually vote? Then answer to that is so blindingly obvious it’s not even worth stating.

So what should we, the caring citizens of this country do? I for one agree with one of the comments over at NewsBusters. Dee Bunk said:

We need commercials and full page newspaper ads or this won’t get out. This is something Republicans need to hammer on over and over. There is no valid reason not to require photo ID’s to vote. I think at least 75% of the public would agree with that. It’s a no brainer and they need to put the pressure on the Dems.

That’s a fantastic idea. I for one will be e-mailing this story to Bill Graham, who is running for the GOP nomination for governor here in NC. He is usually receptive to people who send him articles on topics of interest, and has been very involved in trying to get the word out about the impact that illegals have on our state. I’ll let you know if he responds.

I’ll update later as other bloggers pick-up on this topic.

The Liberal Mentality

Not about the schools obviously…but a related tangent nonetheless. I’ll get there, don’t worry.

 I’ve been thinking about this subject for awhile now and had planned a post on “The Liberal Mentality” for the future. However, a transcript I was reading on Rush’s site the other day brought a new angle into the mix. Then yesterday I began reading a book, “The Vision of the Anointed” by Thomas Sowell, and as often is the case, someone far more brilliant than I has thoroughly covered a similar subject. I’m only about 10% into the book, so I do not have all of the details, but I highly recommend it and anything written by Sowell. He is incredibly brilliant, so much so that if I do not take notes while I read his books, I can never remember half the information he puts in them.   

I also want to note before getting to the heart of the matter that I hesitate to use labels like “liberal” because there are plenty of people that think of themselves as liberal but do not fall into this mentality. They come damn close, but they reach their conclusions by actually thinking. Obviously, there are conservatives that have their own mentality, or “vision” as Sowell would say, however, that mentality is not front and center day after day in the media. Bottom line, I use the label “liberal” often, but it does not refer to all people on the left, just those that follow the following pattern.

For the Rush transcript, he was mentioning that the reason “global warming” is so powerful and persuasive is that people want to matter, they want to feel as though their actions have consequences and that by being “better people”, they can have an impact and “save” something (i.e., the planet). He also linked this to people wanting fame, and that expressing concern for the planet, fellow people, etc. (i.e., playing to emotion as I said previously) can bring a person that fame. 

I think there is a lot of truth to that. The entire argument is emotional and psychological. There is ZERO concrete proof to support the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Sure there are computer models and movies, but no REAL evidence. These people cannot even predict next week’s weather, or the strength of a hurricane season, but somehow they know the world is going to boil and cities will drown. Riiiiight. I’ll stop now, as I do not want to get into a global warming rant.

I think it is the constant pounding of the mantra “We are just animals” that makes people seek for just this type of meaning. The average American probably finds much less “meaning” in their life for doing what our forefathers would have found the pinnacle of existence, such as hard work, providing for your family, being a cornerstone of your community through exceptional values and willingness to help others. That stuff is crap now. There are no values; hard work is only respected if you are one of the “working Americans”, which generally means you really don’t work that hard because if you did, you wouldn’t have all the problems associated with this so-called class of people. If you work hard to get out of your poor environment and go to business school and become a CEO and make millions of dollars, you’re not a working American. You are the lucky rich. Meaning for all these people can only be attained by pointing the finger at others and decrying how much they “care” with their brand new Prius, new social entitlement idea or affirmative action plan.  Note: I have nothing against Prius owners or anyone that owns any electric car. Just don’t pretend you are somehow better than me and “doing your part” to “save” the planet.  

The other aspect to this is that desire to be in control. This is of course not a shocker, given that the majority of people who are die-hard global warming believers are also liberals and therefore want redistribution of income and other socialist ideals. Why? To be in control. To have the power. It’s all about control, from food stamps to legislated no-smoking areas to the Kyoto protocol and global warming. It’s all about deciding how things should be done. They create this evil monster out there that can only be defeated by the answer they have, so put them in and they will fix it. All it takes is some government spending. Social injustice? No problem. Climate change? No problem.

Now we get to Sowell’s book, which by the way was written in 1995 and thus to my knowledge was well before all the global warming hype. His analysis of the “vision” (aka “mentality”) is incredibly prescient in that it describes to the letter exactly what is going on with global warming, as well as other mainstream “crises”, i.e. healthcare, S-CHIP, racism, poverty, drugs, sex/AIDS, illegal immigration. The list goes on. In the first chapter, he asks the question, what does the vision offer that reality does not? He answers that it offers a special state of grace and is viewed as not only factually correct but morally superior and that followers of the vision are exempt from the same rules of logic and reason that govern the rest of us. Hmm, sounds just like my argument about S-CHIP and their use of emotion. He goes on to say that the vision makes much use of “compassion” and that the idea that someone else with a different idea, (e.g., that expansion of S-CHIP is bad) could care just as much about the subject (i.e. children) is impossible for them to comprehend. To do so would take emotion out of the equation and mean that the only thing left for debate would be the policy itself. How often is policy actuallydebated? Rarely, if ever. There are few actual arguments and many “substitutes” for arguments/ (Al Gore: “The debate is over.” What debate Al? When did you ever debate anyone about GW?)  

Sowell asserts that there are 4 key elements to the “vision”:

  1. Assertions of an imminent danger to society, of which the masses are unaware.

  2. Urgent need for action to avert an imminent catastrophe.

  3. Government curtails the “dangerous” behavior of the many according to the prescient conclusions of the few.

  4. Disdainful dismissal of arguments to the contrary as either uninformed, irresponsible, or motivated by unworthy purposes.

Well, does that hit the nail on the head for every major social program, healthcare, global warming and every other crisis cooked up by the ruling elite or what?!? He also mentions the use of “honored prophets” who are essentially infallible and beyond reproach.  Do I need to even say his name?

The pattern brought about by these elements is: Crisis, Solution, Results and Response. For the Crisis, evidence is seldom given, or when it is, statistics are seized upon by the proponent while at the same time ignoring evidence to the contrary, sometimes when that evidence is even in the same document. The Solution, they say will lead to A, while critics say it will lead to Z. The Result is usually that it leads to Z, and the Response is where burden is placed on the critics to prove that it was the “solution” that led to the “result”. Often, even when Z is reached, proponents state something along the lines of “Imagine how bad it would have been if we had not acted?” He goes through a few examples, including the “war on poverty”, “sex education” and crime. As one would expect, teaching kids about sex did not reduce the rate of teenage pregnancy and STDs, it caused the two to skyrocket. The same occurred with crime and also with people depending on the government.

This is interesting in light of the recent push to offer birth control to students through the public schools that has been in the news. Common sense cries out that if you make pregnancy a much less likely option by giving out the pill like candy, that STDs, teenage/premarital sex is going to jump tremendously. But we are told no, no, you do not understand. We are just making it safer for the children. Ah yes, the children. What’s next? Oh wait…I also read this article about how global warming hurts children. Oh, it would be hilarious if it weren’t a freaking nightmare that people buy into this. And of course, according to Harry Reid, global warming is one of the reasons for the fires in California. What, did the arsonists brains get fried by global warming so they started the fires? Or was global warming what made the environmentalists stop every single effort to clean out the dead matter to make any fires much more controllable? Well if global warming did those things, I guess it is responsible. Bad, bad global warming.

Also see The Anchoress, who makes some very good points about the resistance to questioning of Global Warming by the media, which at the same time jumps all over the Bush administration for supposedly taking alarmist views on terrorism, etc. At least terrorism is real.

Another area that fits this pattern, the liberal mentality, the vision of the anointed, is illegal immigration. When Congress attempted to pass the Immigration Reform Act (cough: amnesty), there was a grassroots swelling like none have seen in years. They had to shut down the phone system at the capital because so many people were trying to reach their Senators to tell them not to vote. But what did the Democrats do? They called these people bigots, racists, and that they just didn’t understand. Yes, we the American people are just too stupid to follow along with Reid, Pelosi, Clinton, Obama and all their ilk. Or, if we are smart, we are just mean and heartless and don’t care. It’s incredibly interesting to me that Sowell’s summary of the “vision” can be applied point by point to today’s politics.

I will mention tid-bits from Sowell’s book from time to time as I make my way through. I highly recommend that everyone read a copy. The sad thing is that the people who really need to read this never will, or will read it and never understand it. 

New template

Trying out a new template. I wasn’t using the fourth column and it just made the main post area too narrow. I’ll see how I like this. I need to fix my header, obviously.

S-CHIP: Parte Deux

As I said previously on SCHIP, I will go beyond… 

…and question each and every entitlement program that we currently have here in America. That means Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and every other program that takes money from the people to give to those who “need” it.  

Now this is a tough issue to tackle, and I will not endeavor to discuss the subject in full detail, for in all honesty, even though I whole-heartedly agree with the sentiments espoused in the Davy Crockett story from the previous post, even a part of my cold, black, mostly conservative heart still feels empathy for those who truly are needy. In a perfect world, these truly needy people would get help from their friends and neighbors. Yet, this type of assistance is almost to the point of being discouraged in a world where money from the government is just a phone call away and the would be private charity-givers work the first 4 months of the year just to pay their taxes.  

No, I won’t get into all of it, but I will say my main beef is that the lack of personal responsibility we currently have has abused the system. The nub is thus: charity, whether from a private person by choice or from a private person by the force of the government, is designed to help people in a time of need, NOT to maintain a lifestyle of need.  

Yet, even as I write this, a small part of my orignialist mind dies, as it knows full well that the purpose of the government created by our Founding Fathers was never to provide even a modicum of public charity, as the intent of those wise gentleman was to found a government on the principle that YOU are the best person to make the choices in your life, and reap the rewards or suffer the consequences thereof. You cannot make those choices if the government is taking vast portions of your income and dividing as they see fit. The choice is being made for you. And these people arguing for S-CHIP get my goat. On one blog, I was reading the comments where someone was for the expansion of S-CHIP and said something to the effect of “I do not believe families should have to make sacrifices to afford medical care.” It took me a moment to recover from that statement, as I find it quite ironic that they want ME to sacrifice in the form of tax dollars to pay for somebody else’s healthcare etc, but they do not want that person/family to sacrifice on their own. Al Gore can tell us we need to sacrifice for “global warming”, but people are not expected to sacrifice in order to get health insurance BEFORE something bad happens? I honestly do not know if this country can recover from the dependency mentality that has been fostered over the last 60 years.  

Alas, a large portion of the populace just wants to “help the children”. I do not want to see a child suffer either, but I also do not want to bail out parents that do not have enough common sense to forego that new car and instead take care of your damn kids.

 For the next post, I think I may have a few things to say about public (non)education in this country.

Last Night’s Debate

Again, I didn’t watch it. For one I don’t have Fox News and two, it’s just alot faster to read the transcript. Anyway, I thought that everyone did well and I do not have many comments to make on the individual questions. The questions this time around were more directed to what the candidates themselves had said in the past about certain issues and to each other.

 I would like to point out that the distribution of questions was better than in some of the previous debates, however, I thought that alot of the questions given to the 2nd-tier candidates were more reactionary, i.e., “would you like to make a response to what 1st-tier candidate just said”. Most of the original questions were directed to the top 4. I think that Paul did a better job this time of not coming across as screechy…but I still do not agree with his isolationism policy, and it didn’t seem like the audience did either. Economically, he is generally right on.

 I will get back to S-CHIP with the next post, which thankfully recently suffered expansion defeat. More on that later.  


~Edit: I fixed the link to the story discussed, which was not functioning. 


I will endeavor to refrain from writing long posts on a regular basis; however, I have several things to say on this subject, and the principle which it represents in general. So I apologize if the post takes quite awhile to read. I may also consider changing the layout, as four columns is nice, but I am not using them all and it makes my posts look even longer than they truly are…hmmm.



People have been discussing this topic for a couple of weeks now, from TV news, to blogs, to newspapers, to windbags (err, politicians). I know this goes against the intent of the blog, to comment on things not already being commented on, but I also said I would try to bring a new angle, which is what I will try to do here. Not that it is “new”, but it is only that the majority of people are focusing on the families brought about the Democrats, particularly the Frost family, and whether they should or should not be receiving government help (read: our tax dollars). People have addressed the point that it’s not the governments place, but that argument is getting lost in the shuffle on many sites, and nearly absent from mainstream debates. Plus, it is a perfect topic for a blog that derives its name from who really gives government its power.

The reason this aspect is not discussed in the mainstream media is because it does not appeal to the part of the human mind to which the mainstream media directs most of their attention: emotion. What’s the problem, you say? Emotion is an important part of human life; it is arguably the ability to have emotion, particularly to express empathy and (for must of us) to have a conscience, that separate us from the other animals. Although sometimes I think my cats know that they are being wicked…but I digress.

The problem with appealing to emotion is that it is often nearly impossible to counter an emotional argument with a logical one. Why? Reason and logic are often cold in their assessments. Obviously, you cannot live your life solely based on logic and ignore emotion, but in this writer’s opinion, going in the opposite direction and basing decisions on emotion alone is much more problematic. I am reminded of a story I once read, and thanks to the wonders of the Internet I was able to read again just a few moments ago, about Davy Crockett and a charitable bill in Congress in the late 19th century. I am sure at least one of my, ahem, two readers will be aware of this story as it appears on Congressman Paul’s webpage. But in the interest of not linking directly to a candidate, I will link to another web source, but the story is the same. ‘Tis here.

This story should be required reading for anyone that wants to vote. In the interest of space I will not reprint the whole article here, but I will quote some key points. However, I again encourage everyone to read the whole thing. One sentence summary: Congress wants to give a charity gift to a widow of a small monetary sum but Crockett gives a speech about why they do not have the authority and then explains why he believes that in response to a follow-up question.

“We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money.”

“…certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury…”

“’It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man…If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose.”

“It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people.”

To read the whole thing you will discover that Col. Crockett asked that in lieu of using the public monies, each member of Congress donate a week’s pay to the widow. Yet no one took him up on the offer, because “Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people.”

On that story alone, I should rest my argument and as I have no need to make further statements about the expansion of SCHIP. However, I will go beyond…but as this is now already quite a lengthy post, I will save the rest for next time.

What I Wish They Said: Debate Answers Part I

The GOP debate on Tuesday had some interesting questions about the economy. Some were ridiculous, such as those about hedge funds, but others were intriguing. Much better than I expected from Chris Matthews and that ilk. However, in my opinion, some of these questions could have been answered more to the point. Below are my version of a good, cut to the heart of the matter answer. I’ve only picked a handful to keep this post from getting too long. Suggestions appreciated, whether you agree or disagree. 



(1)        The economy is America’s greatest strength. In a recent poll by the Wall Street Journal and NBC News, two-thirds of the American people said that we are either in a recession or headed toward one. Do you agree with that? And, as president, what will you do to ensure economy vibrancy in this country?

Answer: No, I do not agree with that assessment. Every major indicator that we have says exactly the opposite. The stock market is at an all-time high, unemployment is down. I would wager that were that poll to include questions about each individual’s personal financial situation and how they felt, most would feel pretty good. As president, I would keep my hand out of the cookie jar and let the markets take care of themselves.

(1a)      And, yet, two-thirds of the people surveyed said we are either in a recession or headed for one. Why the angst?

Answer: Well, tell a lie often enough and people believe it. Of course, some areas of the market are down, just as others are up, but the media in this country is one of the most pessimistic forces to every grace the face of the earth. By constantly hearing that the economy is bad, both from the media and from candidates and politicians on the other side of the political aisle, people begin to believe it is true. Nevermind that their own personal situations are fine; as Americans we care for our fellow citizens. People hear repeatedly that the economy is doing poorly, and they begin to believe that their success is an anomaly and that many of their fellow citizens must be down on their luck. It’s a simple fact of perception.

(2) Governor Romney, here in Detroit, Michigan, alone, one in every 29 homes went into foreclosure in the first six months of the year. Whose job is it to fix this problem? The government or private enterprise?

Answer: The short answer is, not the government. That leaves private enterprise, or more appropriately, the free market. There are a lot of forces at play here and the interaction of those forces is much too complex to be intentionally manipulated by the government. Yet already you see it happening here with taxes being raised. Raising taxes will have the exact opposite affect and choke an already sputtering economy here in Michigan. It’s tragic that while the U.S. economy is experiencing growth and low levels of unemployment, here in Michigan things are heading in the opposite direction. However, without government interference, the free market will ride out the storm and things will right themselves. With continued interference through the raising of taxes and other measures, things will only get worse.

(3) Senator McCain, what about that? How are you going to win the middle class back? Wall Street executives are making millions of dollars every year, paying tax rates of 15 percent, while the average guy out there is paying 30% in taxes. Is this system fair?

Answer: The system is fairer than your question makes it sound; however, there are much better alternatives. Particularly the Fair Tax, which I will speak on in a moment.

To address the figures you gave, yes it is true that many of the wealthy executives in this country pay 15% tax. The reason for that is, most of the income for these big executives is in the form of stocks, dividends, etc, and is thus taxed at a capital gains tax rate because it is “unearned” income. For most of us, our income is “earned”, as we are paid by our employer. Thus the higher tax rates for the “average guy”, as you call him. Dollar-wise, the wealthy in this country still pay the majority of the taxes. I believe that the statistics are something along the lines of the top 50% wage earners pay 96% of the taxes. Percentage-wise, there’s some work to do. That’s why I support the Fair Tax. In summary, the Fair Tax abolishes all payroll, interest, capital gains, ALL income taxes, earned or unearned. To replace it, a national sales tax is put in place. There are exemptions of course so that no family pays tax on the necessities of life, such as food, but the rest is taxed at a flat rate. Thus, the more you make and spend, the more tax you make. The less you make and spend, the less tax you pay. The Fair Tax will also allow the government to collect on the billions of dollars spent every year by illegal wage earners, which could be illegal immigrants that are not legally allowed to work, or drug dealers and other criminals who obviously never report the money they are making. But when they buy that new Mercedes, the government will get a portion.