DISENFRANCHISEMENT? Madison Lefty Tries To O Keefe The DMV And The Daily Kos Fails Again

Last night a friend on Twitter forwarded me this story on The Daily Kos. If you're like me, then you're usually hesitant to open a Kos link for fear of inducing a full blown migraine. However, this post in particular had to do with Wisconsin's Voter ID law, so I was curious. As usual, when Liberals are talking about the union busting, middle class/ poor family hating, and racist Republicans in the Wisconsin legislature, the claims are based on emotion, little on fact, and proves they just aren't that smart.

The video, taken and posted originally on youtube by madtowngirl2, tries it's best to 'O Keefe' a DMV in Madison, WI. It's an attempt to prove that Governor Scott Walker just hates poor people and doesn't want them to vote, or as the lefties in Madison like to cry “DISENFRANCHISEMENT!” I would ask for the full unedited version of the video because of the obvious hack job done by madtowngirl2, but I'm not writing from Media Matters point of view.

In Kos's headline, they refer to the person attempting to get an ID card as a “boy”. Last time I checked the legal age to vote anywhere in the United States (including FitzWalkerStan) is 18, and according to most, that is the age one is considered to be an adult. Perhaps the author referred to him as a boy because he was accompanied by his mommy at the DMV.

Kos then goes on to say:

“The first station clerk determines that the boy's bank account does not display enough "activity" to constitute a proof of address form.  This is not only absurd ("does he use it?") but a clear privacy infringement as is the follow up question of whether or not the account is of the "checking" or "savings" variety.  "Oh, it's just a savings," the clerk remarks.  The mother throws a subtle jab, countering that "he's unemployed."

Okay if you are a Kos lemming then you would be thinking “Who the hell is he to judge how much activity is on that account? Maybe he's poor- Walker hates poor people and doesn't want them to vote!” Sadly for the left, the explanation is really quite simple and has nothing to do with fascism. I'll explain. For example, suppose you had a savings account when you were a minor and lived at your parent's house in another state. You never closed that account for whatever reason and the bank statements showing only payments of dividends still go to your parents house even though you now live in another state. Just because you have a savings account in another state doesn't mean you're a resident of that state therefore you wouldn't be able to vote in that other state. I think the clerk questioning the amount of activity or lack thereof was because this kid could have easily been in the same scenario I just explained. I don't like a bank statement being an acceptable form of proof of residence for this exact reason but I'm sure the Republicans didn't want to disenfranchise anyone by excluding these.

The next misunderstood part of the ID incident as told by Kos:

“The mother-son hidden camera team manages to satisfy the bank account busting first clerk and eventually makes it to the third clerk where they discover that unless you explicitly specify that you have come to the DMV for a Voter ID, you will be charged $28.  The clerk admits that there is no difference between the Voter ID and the non-Voter ID -- they're literally the same physical object -- but that it's the policy of the establishment to leave the onus for making this distinction on the customer: no signs, no warnings, just a box on the form you have to hope you notice and check.”

So what the mother-son duo, the Kos author, and the leftist drones reading are now thinking that having to make the distinction between the Voter ID and a regular ID in order to get a free one is just another attempt by the Walker Regime to dupe people into unnecessarily paying $28 for an ID to vote. First, let me just say that despite the AFL-CIO's recent claim that “hundreds of thousands” potential voters in WI who don't have I.d cards, there are very few people who don't have them. If you drive, you need a driver's license. If you are at least 18 and smoke cigarettes, you need a state issued picture ID. card to purchase them. If you are 21 years old and want to get into a bar, you need an ID. Just got hired for a job and they want to put you on the payroll? Most likely you will need an ID. See my point? Unless you live under a rock where you don't drive, drink, smoke, work, rent movies, ect. you will probably have to show your ID at some point in your adult life.

This provision in the law where state issued cards would be paid for was added because the left cried that the Republicans were (get ready for that buzz word again) disenfranchising:

23 percent of Wisconsinites over the age of 65, 17 percent of white men and women, 55 percent of African American males and 49 percent of African American women, 46 percent of Hispanic men and 59 percent of Hispanic women,78 percent of African American males age 18-24 and 66 percent of African American women age 18-24 because the AFL-CIO said so. I don't know why you have to check a box and why they wouldn't have a separate form but either way, if your going to the DMV seeking a free card (whether you check the box or not) you will get your free card.

So I'm sorry to tell you Liberals, no matter how much you scream that the Voter ID law in Wisconsin is racist, Hitler-esque, or whatever other absurd claim you're crying that day, it isn't meant to prevent you from voting, it's to prevent you from fraudulently voting.

*side note If you're looking for more information on the WI voter I.d law, you can find it here.

My Response to Governor Walker on the Issue of the Statewide Smoking Ban

A few weeks ago I asked Governor Walker if he felt
 it was the job of the government to regulate private business with smoking bans. Here is his response:

First, let me just say that I admire what Walker has done for the state of Wisconsin in taking on Democrats and National Unions. He has shown leadership despite the criticism and chaos at the capitol in Madison. While I agree with the Governor on 99% of the issues, this is one where I vehimenty disagree.

In May of 2009 former WI Governor Jim Doyle signed into law a a statewide smoking ban that included all restaurants and taverns and took effect July 05 2010. One can argue that the effects have or haven't hurt small business. I argue that it has because people I know (including myself) choose to stay out of bars especially in winter because of this smoking ban and that has in fact hurt bar owners. However, that's not my issue. My issue is why the government thinks it can regulate if a private business owner to not allow smoking in their own establishment; the same establishment the state makes plenty of money from in taxes.

I realize this is an issue many will disagree with me on because you may hate the smell of smoke or you actually believe the studies (which have been proven wrong) that scared you into thinking you're gonna die from the person sitting on the into next bar stool chain smoking. Well guess what? It's your choice to go to an establishment which allows smoking the same way it is my choice to not go into a place that doesn't allow it. If a family restaurant that has a smoking section starts to notice that families aren't bringing their children there to eat, the owner has the choice to eliminate the smoking section if they want to see children back in the restaurant. I have a friend who owned a great non smoking martini bar. His business was successful because he catered to the many non smokers we have in town.

It's the freedom to choose. That's what's great about the free market system. Let the people decide what they want. Governor Walker says he doesn't agree with the philosophy of the government telling a small business how to run itself, but in the next breath says that the ban has worked. I will again argue that it hasn't. There is still smoking going in bars, except that now it's illegal.

Governor Walker can prove to the citizens of Wisconsin that he truly does believe in smaller government and in the philosophy of the free market by repealing this state wide smoking ban and leaving it up to the individual tavern or restaurant owner to choose.

Cain We Have An Honest Discussion On Marriage Rights?

 "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." ~Thomas Paine

In a conversation with my friend on the subject of gay marriage, I mentioned a man whom I highly respect, had said something that really disappointed me. I'm referring to Herman Cain and his statements on Homosexuality being a "sin" and a "choice". While I consider Mr. Cain to be my frontrunner pick to go against Obama, I strongly disagree with him. Don't get me wrong, Cain is entitled to his own opinions on the issue of Homosexuality and gay marriage, but I feel it is a devastating position shared among many Conservatives and I feel it will ensure the Democrats will continue to get the support from the gay community solely on the empty promises they always campaign on.

First let me say that I personally believe Homosexuality is a birth trait and that it is not a choice. As my friend put it perfectly, "you can't help who you're attracted to and you can't explain it". He's right. You can't help if you're attracted to tall, short, skinny, curvacious, blonde, or brunette- you just are. It's an objective view that only you can hold and there isn't a right or wrong way to go about it. One shouldn't be discriminated because of their own preference in what they like. This also includes what gender you prefer. And choosing a mate based on what one prefers, doesn't make them any less smart, good looking, or moral.

Mr. Cain along with Conservatives and Tea Partiers claim to be defenders and protectors of the constitution, believe that all men are created equal, and are entitled to rights given to them by God. So, shouldn't this include equal rights when it comes to gays?
On my Facebook I asked people's opinion on whether the government or the church should decide who gets married. A few responded but their beliefs were based on a religious perspective and failed to make the argument. My position on marriage is that it is a contract between 2 consenting adults, their church, and their god. I believe that if a couple wants to be considered "married", it would be left up to the church. In other words, I believe the word "marriage" is religious in nature and can hold different standards depending on the religion. The government shouldn't be the arbitrator of what constitutes a marriage. I also feel that any relationship officiated or not should get the same recognition when it comes to taxes (complete with loopholes and credits until the tax code is changed), insurance, and kinship. No one should be granted special rights or privileges based on religious beliefs or religious affiliations. Marriage as currently defined as one woman and one man, creates a protected class that is given special privileges and should not have its legal definition reliant on a religious foundation. We are not a theocracy. We live under the constitution, not Leviticus.We obey the rule of law, not a priest.

Rights are not contingent on personal moral convictions. Most people who oppose gay marriage do so because they are morally opposed to Homosexuality in general. But personal disgust and visceral reactions are not moral positions- they are mere reactions and they shouldn't be an influence on public policy. Show me an example of Homosexuality harming society and I will give you 10 examples showing how theocratic beliefs have harmed society.

I'm not gay but I do believe in equal rights for everyone and I also believe people should be able to do what they want as long as they don't interfere or violate the rights of others. It's time the Tea Party, Mr. Cain, and anyone else who lives in America and loves our freedoms to start considering the real meaning of individual rights.
  


*follow up will be on marriage licenses

Double Standards, It's A Liberal Thing

Today during Representative Anthony Weiner's press conference a woman who makes me have respect for Alex Jones tweeted this:

@Karoli Karoli

gotta say, I’m pissed at @RepWeiner. Not for tweeting his junk, but for legitimizing Breitbart.

2 hours ago via Echofon

It doesn't surprise me really. This woman is known to come up with crazy conspiracy theories and is wrong on virtually everything. We all know that the left hold their own to a completely different standard than we do on the right. Remember Chris Lee and his shirtless photo? Yeah, not quite the same affect that a picture of bulging pair of underwear has but Lee resigned from his position almost immediately. Or what about Mark Foley, John Ensign, Mark Souder? You get the point. All of these Republican elected officials couldn't keep it in their pants and ended up resigning. Why is it that we on the right are willing to hold elected officials accountable for their actions but the left excuses the guilty and goes after the messenger? We've seen this repeatedly especially when Andrew Breitbart is behind the breaking news. Are they so ideologically driven that they are willing to ignore the facts when it comes to their dear leaders mistakes or is it that they have no standards when it comes honor or integrity as long as the district, state, or white house continues to have a Democrat in position?

We have many serious problems in this country that extend beyond the fidelity of politicians. Sure, we on the right have had fun with the Weinergate scandal all week because he's one of the most arrogant politicians in office and because for once it's not a Republican. But the underlying issue with this case is that Weiner lied and actually tried to blame first a hacker and then Breitbart, thus giving professional smear merchants like Eric Boehlert and Markos Moulitsas reason to call the whole thing a hoax and further the lie. By Weiner not being honest about his mistake he allowed this story to continue for over a week (and of course the media didn't blink) when we could have been having more serious discussions. Trust me the last thing I want to do is get to the bottom of lewd photos sent to college co-eds by one of the most repulsive men I've ever seen.

Much to my and many others disappointment Weiner did not resign today. Should a politician resign for being a sexting, unfaithful jerk to his wife? That's not really any of my business nor is it for me to judge if this had not gone public. What is my business though is a sexting, unfaithful elitist who thinks he can LIE to the public and get away with it. It's time the left feel the same way.

~whoever is careless with the truth in small matters, cannot be trusted with important matters.- Albert Einstein

Why Hasn't JoAnne Kloppenburg Recanted Her Victory Speech?

                                                                   LOL!!!!!
      It has been a week since the residents of Wisconsin decided to put a halt to the unions so called "referendum on Scott Walker". Even with all the voter fraud that usually takes place in WI due to our crappy voter laws, it was still a close race.  However, on Wednesday, before the canvassing of the districts had even begun, Kloppenburg decided she would declare victory in the close race with only a 204 vote lead.  That seemed like an odd move since the official reports had not yet come back.  She declared herself the winner against a 12 year veteran to the courts and said that "the voters of Wisconsin have spoken". I realize there was an error in the reporting of the City of Brookfield but all the conspiracies have been ruled out and it was in fact just an error, even Huffpo says so.

     This morning I heard that she still hadn't walked back from her early declaration of victory.  I was wondering why?  It seems disrespectful to the actual winner and silly that she would continue to hold on to hope even with Justice Prosser ahead still by approximately 7,000 votes. Even Prosser is considerate and smart enough to wait. In the next day or so when Milwaukee County canvassing totals are in and confirms what we already know, I expect things will get interesting here as she's called in Mark Elias as her attorney.  I suppose she feels if Sen. Al Franken can lose an election but still become a Senator, Elias is probably worth every penny.

We in Wisconsin know this is far from over. We will have to fight the do nothing left and the solidarity Fisters at every initiative to get this state's budget under control, while they offer no alternatives.  I am happy Justice Prosser will be declared the winner within the next few days, but I know all too well this only pisses the left off more.  Stay tuned.....................