Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation that would require a voter, before voting, to show a valid, government-issued photo ID (for example, a driver’s license, Massachusetts photo ID, military ID with photo, or U.S. passport)?
Text of a non-binding question on the 2012 ballot in some locations in Massachusetts (First Bristol, Fourth Bristol, and Sixth Bristol House districts).
This question is getting very little publicity. It’s not mentioned in the voter information package mailed to every household in the state. It’s received only brief mentions in a few local papers. The Boston newspapers have not mentioned it at all.
The lack of publicity is unfortunate, because I predict the question will pass, and probably with ease. To people unfamiliar with the issue, who will step into the voting booth and read this question for the first time, it will seem very innocuous — Of course I want to eliminate voter fraud! Why shouldn’t someone need to show ID?
There are of course, many arguments against requiring voter ID, including the probable disenfranchisement of large segments of the population, and the fact that voter fraud is essentially non-existent. However, the problem with these arguments is that they likely will not occur to a voter unfamiliar with this issue who, upon reading this question for the first time, won’t take more than two seconds to consider the question before checking “yes”.
But what is the percentage of voters unfamiliar with this issue? I would wager the majority. Despite the fact that this is a currently a hot-button issue in several states, there has been very little coverage in the Massachusetts media. We’ve got enough on our hands without worrying about whether someone in another state has to show ID when voting. So when these uninformed voters are coupled with those familiar with the issue and firmly in its favor, the question should pass easily.
By why, you ask, is this such a big deal if the question is non-binding and limited to only a few communities? Momentum. Passage gives supporters of this issue the initiative to keep pushing to get voter ID passed into law. They will point to the results and say, “The people have spoken. They want voter ID. And furthermore, look at that margin: It’s a mandate!” Which would be bullshit, because the the majority of the people who voted for it weren’t familiar with the issue.
This thing needs to be nipped in the bud, but I fear that it’s going to sprout into something more.
I’m … inclined to think they’re called the Log Cabin Club because their role model is Uncle Tom.
VOTER TO REP. C.W. BILL YOUNG (R-FLA.): Jesse Jackson Jr. is passing around a bill to increase the minimum wage to $10 an hour. Would you support that?
REP. YOUNG: “Probably not.”
VOTER: “It’s $10 bucks an hour. It would give us a living wage.”
YOUNG: “How about getting a job. Why do you want that benefit? Get a job.”
VOTER: “I have a job, but it’s not enough to get by on.”
(YOUNG WALKS AWAY)
Any legislator whose response to a legitimate policy question is “Get a job” should not be a legislator.
Congressman Young is currently the longest-serving Republican member of Congress. That speaks volumes.
I’m concerned that your decision has more to do with political correctness than with sound reasoning. Aside from being based on uncertain science, this decision will hurt Massachusetts fishermen and their families at a time when they are already struggling to survive under onerous government regulations.
A Republican objecting to the free market sorting itself out? Must be an election year.
Rachel Maddow executes a beautiful takedown of Mitt Romney by demonstrating how the Etch-A-Sketch really is the perfect metaphor for Mitt.
And yes, the clip is 15 minutes long, because there are just too many examples to make it any shorter.
We believe most Americans would be stunned to learn the details of how these secret court opinions have interpreted section 215 of the Patriot Act. As we see it, there is now a significant gap between what most Americans think the law allows and what the government secretly claims the law allows. This is a problem, because it is impossible to have an informed public debate about what the law should say when the public doesn’t know what its government thinks the law says.
Senators Ron Wyden of Oregon and Mark Udall of Utah in a letter to Attorney General Holder protesting the secrecy of the interpretations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The senators believe that the government is utilizing this section of the Patriot Act to collect intelligence in a manner completely different than how the majority of Americans, including most congressmen, believe the law authorizes. Furthermore, they claim skepticism about the actual value of this “intelligence collection operation”.
Here’s another good excerpt:
Americans expect their government to operate within the boundaries of publicly-understood law, and as voters they have a need and a right to know how the law is being interpreted, so that they can ratify or reject decisions made on their behalf. To put it another way, Americans know that their government will sometimes conduct secret operations, but they don’t think that government officials should be writing secret law.
The crux of the Justice Department’s argument for keeping the official interpretation of the law secret is that this secrecy prevents US adversaries from understanding exactly what intelligence agencies are allowed to do. We can see how it might be tempting to latch on to this chilling logic, but we would note that it would then follow that all of America’s surveillance laws should be secret, because that would make it even harder to guess how the United States government collects information…But American laws should not be made public only when government officials find it convenient. They should be public all the time, and every American should be able to find out what their government thinks those laws mean. We recognize that this obligation to be transparent with the public can be a challenge, but avoiding that challenge by developing a secret body of law is not an acceptable solution.
I like the use of “chilling logic”. Hell, even with those odious signing statements presidents have been using lately, at least the public knows where the executive branch stands.
The Justice Department’s motion to dismiss these Freedom of Information Act lawsuits argues that it is the responsibility of the executive branch to determine the best way to protect the secrecy of intelligence sources and methods. While this is indeed a determination for the executive branch to make, we are concerned that the executive branch has developed a practice of bypassing traditional checks and balances and treating these determinations as dispositive in all cases. In other words, when intelligence officials argue that something should stay secret, policy makers often seem to defer to them without carefully considering the issue themselves. We have great respect for our nation’s intelligence officers, the vast majority of whom are hard-working and dedicated professionals. But intelligence officials are specialists – it is their job to determine how to collect as much information as possible, but it is not their job to balance the need for secrecy with the public’s right to know how the law is being interpreted. That responsibility rests with policy makers, and we believe that responsibility should not be delegated lightly.
Check out all the crazy in this letter from Indiana State Representative Bob Morris, R-Fort Wayne, to his fellow lawmakers regarding his opposition to a nonbinding resolution to honor the Girl Scouts of America on the occasion of their 100th anniversary.
This past week I was asked to sign a House Resolution recognizing the 100th Anniversary of Girl Scouts of America. After talking to some well-informed constituents, I did a small amount of web-based research, and what I found is disturbing. The Girl Scouts of America and their worldwide partner, World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGGS), have entered into a close strategic affiliation with Planned Parenthood. You will not find evidence of this on the GSA/WAGGGS website—in fact, the websites of these two organizations explicitly deny funding Planned Parenthood.
Nonetheless, abundant evidence proves that the agenda of Planned Parenthood includes sexualizing young girls through the Girl Scouts, which is quickly becoming a tactical arm of Planned Parenthood.
Now, I wouldn’t have an issue if there was an affiliation between Planned Parenthood and the Girl Scouts, but I can understand why some people would. However, both organizations deny an affiliatoin, so how can Morris be so confident that there is one? Where is his evidence coming from? He doesn’t say.
I am somewhat surprised that he didn’t take the “tactical arm” reference further and equate the Girl Scouts to the Hitler Youth. Those kids had babies willy-nilly, you know.
He also takes issue with the Girl Scouts because they “promote homosexual lifestyles”.
Many parents are abandoning the Girl Scouts because they promote homosexual lifestyles. In fact, the Girl Scouts education seminar girls are directed to study the example of role models. Of the fifty role models listed, only three have a briefly-mentioned religious background – all the rest are feminists, lesbians, or Communists. World Net Daily, in a May 2009 article, states that Girl Scout Troops are no longer allowed to pray or sing traditional Christmas Carols.
So, non-religious = feminist, lesbian, or Communist? I assume Communist is a catch-all for any non-religious non-feminist non-lesbian. Also: World Net Daily? There’s an unimpeachable source.
And, of course, there’s the issue of the organization’s honorary president.
The fact that the Honorary President of Girl Scouts of America is Michelle Obama, and the Obama’s are radically pro-abortion and vigorously support the agenda of Planned Parenthood, should give each of us reason to pause before our individual or collective endorsement of the organization.
There’s just so many things wrong with that statement, I don’t have time to list them.
Be proud, Fort Wayne.
"That’s how I square it. Suffering, if you’re a Christian, suffering is part of life. And it’s not a bad thing. It is an essential thing in life. And that we suffer — there are all different ways to suffer, and one way to suffer is through lack of food and shelter. And there is another way to suffer, which is lack of dignity and hope. There are all sorts of ways that people suffer, and it’s not just tangible, it’s intangible and we have to consider both."
I’ve watched this a couple of times, and I don’t know what he can possibly mean by “we have to consider both” except that he wants to make sure that voters understand that he thinks people should suffer both tangibly and intangibly.
What a Santorum.
Below are some of the most stunning incidents of police officers going wild on Occupy protesters around the country. To be fair, we don’t always know the context in which these violent actions occurred – what happened in the moments before the incident was captured on camera. At the same time, when you look at these images, keep in mind that the rule of thumb in use-of-force cases is that police are prohibited from applying more physical force than is necessary to accomplish a legitimate law enforcement task. When they exceed that measure, they’re committing a crime.
But will they be held accountable for committing these crimes?
“Last week, the 7,800-member Society of Professional Journalists passed a resolution at the Excellence in Journalism convention in New Orleans to drop the i-word. The resolution discontinued use of the term ‘illegal alien,’and suggested continued discussion to re-evaluate the implications of the use of ‘illegal immigrant.’
“It’s been a long road for SPJ members who have led the charge to drop the i-word. For the past two years, Leo Laurence, a member of SPJ’s diversity committee, has been leading the charge to get his colleagues to drop the i-word, pointing to the unconstitutionality of the language. The resolution was completely rejected at last year’s conference. Laurence has suffered personal and professional attacks, often via hate mail and phone calls following a Fox News appearance last December. Still, diversity committee members have focused on building awareness about the damaging term in the last year. And now their work has paid off. Big time.”
(3) encourages citizens of all faiths and religious persuasions to reflect on the important impact that the Ten Commandments have had on the people and national character of the United States.
Excerpt from H.Res.211 - Expressing support for designation of the first weekend of May as Ten Commandments Weekend to recognize the significant contributions the Ten Commandments have made in shaping the principles, institutions, and national character of the United States.
This is so arrogant, yet typical, of Republicans. I’m not even surprised.
What’s with Donald Trump and this whole ‘birthers’ torch he’s taking up? He may be a smart guy, but he sounds like he’s as much of an idiot as the rest of them.
For instance, at 1:58 he puts forth as evidence that that the President was not born in Hawaii because no doctors or nurses there remember him. This, of course, is absurd in and of itself. But then, at 3:20 he scoffs at the Governor of Hawaii, a family friend of the Obamas at the time of the President’s birth, who claims he remembers when the President was born. Trump says this is just the Governor standing up for his party.
Unlike just about all other federal employees, the salaries for members of Congress ($174,00) and the President ($400,000) are paid from permanent mandatory spending accounts that are not subject to annual renewal from Congress. They are, by law, effectively exempted from shutdowns. In case you’re wondering who decided that Congress’s pay should be immune to Congress failing to fund the government, the answers is, of course …Congress! Funny how that works.