Please checkout the Right View Wisconsin http://www.rightviewwi.com/ for election and political blogs from many authors including Jay Weber of WISN Radio and myself.

I would like to give credit when credit is due.  Our local blogger Steve T. (emailed me of the idea) and WISN Mark Belling, also gave me the idea.

We need to start making more noise on ACORN and I think we need to email the local MSM (Main Stream Media) to try to get them to cover the problems that the MSM currently are ignoring.  Picketing Doyle’s office and the MSM to get them to stop ignoring the problems may be needed.

Issue to email this week: ACORN

“Why are you not covering the ACORN problems in the nation and the problems in Milwaukee with ACORN?  Over half of the records checked in Lake County, Indiana from ACORN are fraudulent and that office running the Indiana voter registration is located in Milwaukee.  Why is not a reporter asking to independently looking into this in Milwaukee?  ”

Please email them and ask them why and get your friends and family to do the same.

NBC - Channel 4
tmj4feedback@todaystmj4.com

CBS – Channel 58
feedback@cbs58.com

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
mkaiser@journalsentinel.com

jsmetro@journalsentinel.com

FOX and ABC don’t list email address, but require you to fill out a form.

Red and Blue that is!

***Color Changes***

When looking at these older maps don’t forget that the colors changed recently.

Blue was the color of Republicans, which once stood for old money, blue bloods

Red was the color of Democrats, which once stood for revolution.

Why did the color change?  No one knows exactly, but Wikipedia states, “Blue was often used for Republicans, and Red was the often used for Democrats until either the 1992 or 1996 election.  Democrats did not like the association with the color red (i.e., the color of communism) and no doubt the use of Blue for Republicans had similar connotations around wealth or royalty (i.e., "blue bloods").”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Style_for_U.S._presidential_election,_yyyy

When looking at the county color maps, you will see that many of the blue counties are near water of some sort.  The shipping industry is still heavily labor union and that may have an influence on them as the Union has supported the Democratic Party, except in 1980 some major unions endorsed Ronald Reagan.

We are a center right country and many people, including the media, would like to paint the picture that the country is blue or purple and leans left.  But it is not!  How many areas would be red if the blue side was not stealing the election with voter fraud for many years?

Click on pictures to enlarge

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/

Need help selecting a Presidential Candidate

Take these tests and then look at the issues.

http://glassbooth.org/

http://www.gotoquiz.com/candidates/2008-quiz.html

Obama on the Issues:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

McCain on the Issues:

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/

Due to restrictions and censoring on the NOW network, along with Jeff N., we will start up a blog for the right called “The Right View Wisconsin”     http://www.rightviewwi.com/ . 

I will still be doing the NOW blog, but Jeff N. and I will be doing this new blog along with other main contributors.

The new blog with be about the Conservative Right and Libertarian issues and viewpoints on any topic.  I am sure politics will be center stage.

No longer will the restraints and rules bind the Conservatives & Libertarians who dare to voice their concerns against the left.  This will put the right on even ground with the attack left.

Who else will be contributors?

On board we will have:

Jay Weber – of the Jay Weber Show

CRG - Orville Seymer & Chris Kliesmet

Kevin Fischer of FranklinNow

Jim Hayett of LakeCountryReporter

Amy Hemmer of LakeCountryReporter

Scott J.

Wayne U.

Please Join us at The Right View Wisconsin

http://www.rightviewwi.com/

Obama backs away from McCain's debate challenge

By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic candidate Barack Obama on Saturday backed away from rival John McCain's challenge for a series of joint appearances, agreeing only to the standard three debates in the fall.

Please Read the full Article.

McCain would crush Obama in more debates.  If it is not scripted for Obama and he doesn’t have the questions before hand, he wouldn’t know what to say.  What does Obama stand for?  Why no town hall debates?

Here is an email I received

“Randy, I'm a Democrat and I support Obama.  However, one bill he's purposing to sign if he gets elected might change my vote.  My mother’s place of work had a meeting about it.

This could change the whole workforce everywhere if Obama is elected.

Source and full article Here”

Indeed, Big Labor is launching its largest political campaign in its history, and this year, more than ever, Big Labor means Big Money.  The two largest union coalitions — the AFL-CIO and the "Change to Win" Federation, a coalition of labor unions formed in 2005 as an alternative to the AFL-CIO — admit that they will spend at least $300 million on federal elections alone.  When combined with political action committees, local unions and other union funders, at least $1 billion of pro-union money is being dumped into electioneering.  You can bet the union bosses expect a lot of "change" from Obama next year on labor law.  An Obama administration — possibly coupled with a filibuster-proof Senate — will feel a real sense of obligation to repay Big Labor that supported them.

Top on the Big Labor agenda is the "Employee Free Choice Act" (EFCA), which is better described as the Employee 'No Free Choice' Act.  If it passes, employees would be subjected to a "card check" system, which effectively requires them to declare publicly their support or opposition to unionizing their shop.  Without the protection of the secret ballot, workers would be subject to coercion and deceptive practices by pro-union forces.  Mandatory card check union drives will mean that millions more American workers will be forced to join unions and facing the "choice" between paying union dues or being fired.  Both President Bush and John McCain have said they would veto this union power grab, while Obama is a co-sponsor and leading advocate.

Another pro-union bill on the fast track is the misnamed "Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act.”  If it becomes law, the bill would force state and local governments to collectively bargain with union officials over all contracts involving police officers, firefighters, and paramedics.  This would be required even in "Right to Work" states that currently guarantee workers the right to choose whether or not to join a union.  Public safety employees would no longer be permitted to bargain individually and could be forced to accept the union's "representation" — like it or not.  The bill would also facilitate union efforts to stamp out the proud tradition of volunteer firefighting.  It would create massive unfunded mandates by imposing significant additional costs on state and local governments which are not reimbursed by the federal government.

Like the other bills, the police and firefighter unionization bill has so far been blocked — barely — in the Senate, backstopped by a Bush veto threat.  But it would likely be unstoppable under an Obama presidency.  One of Obama's pet projects is the Patriot Employers Act, which he introduced last August.  The bill offers incentives — in the form of tax breaks — to employers that comply with a litany of Big Labor demands.  To get these tax breaks, companies need to agree to eliminate secret ballot elections for unionizing in their shop and to enforce a gag rule on truthful speech about the downsides of unionization.

An Obama White House will also seek law changes that prohibit permanent replacement of striking workers.  Under current law, an employer has the right to continue operating during a strike by hiring replacement workers.  In advocating a ban on striker replacements, Obama's message is clear — union-ordered strikes would be automatic winners, and American workplaces would come to a screeching halt in the face of extortionate union demands.

Obama would also invariably promote the ultimate, though rarely spoken, goal of Big Labor: ending the rights of "Right to Work" states to preserve the rights of employees to decide for themselves whether or not to join or financially support a union.  All Right to Work protections would be eliminated by repealing Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act.  Without this provision, forced unionism would prevail in all states, and states could not protect private sector workers from union demands to pay dues to them as a condition of employment.  This would be a huge win for unions and pro-union candidates — literally billions of additional dollars in new coerced dues would flow into Big Labor's coffers which could be used to support pro-union candidates.  So the union bosses have found their man.  With their billion-dollar bet on Barack Obama, they know that the payoff of new union coercive powers will be worth the trouble.

McCain campaign charges Obama playing race card

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Citizens United takes on the pro-Obama bias in the media and the love crush they have on Obama.

You can check out the ad now and full-length documentary film - Hype: The Obama Effect," which Citizens United plans to release in early September.

Citizens United is running the commercial on Fox News through the end of the week.

Check it out

http://www.citizensunited.org/

Here is the article that the New York Times would not print and asked the McCain camp to rewrite.  While a news media should be fair and balanced that is not always the case.  If you want to buy a media outfit, you could influence what is printed and what is not.  I do think that if you let one party write the other should if you are reporting news.

On to blogs.  They are one sided and don’t have to be fair.  I was asked where are McCain’s flip-flop posts from me.  This from a Liberal blogger who does post the McCain flip-flops, but he himself doesn’t post the Obama ones.  He doesn’t have to.  The blog is opinioned.  Thus fair and balance doesn’t have to be there.  That blogs are slanted and sided and that is the point.

“It is mostly, as you'll see, a response to Democratic contender Barack Obama's views on what to do in Iraq -- and a response to the opinion piece written by Obama that the Times published on July 14. Obama's column was called "My Plan for Iraq."” – USA Today

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/07/new-york-times.html

July 21, 2008

Op-Ed piece by Republican presidential contender John McCain

Sent to The New York Times

Source: The McCain campaign

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation "hard" but not "hopeless.”  Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats.  The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy.  I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington.  Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent.  "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there," he said on January 10, 2007.  "In fact, I think it will do the reverse."  Now Sen. Obama has been forced to acknowledge that "our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.”  But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, "Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.”  Even more heartening has been progress that's not measured by the benchmarks.  More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists.  Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City -- actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Sen. Obama's determination to pull out all of our combat troops.  All that has changed is his rationale.  In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his "plan for Iraq" in advance of his first "fact finding" trip to that country in more than three years.  It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months.  In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost.  If we had taken his advice, it would have been.

Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence.  He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness.  The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Sen. Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help.  The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover.  The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Sen. Obama charges.  A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five "surge" brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves.  As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind.  I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons.  This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his "plan for Iraq.”  Perhaps that's because he doesn't want to hear what they have to say.  During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be "very dangerous."

- 3 -

It’s been reported today that Jason Furman has joined Barack Obama’s Presidential campaign as Economic Policy Advisor.  Needless to say, we find Furman’s positions on Wal-Mart disturbing.

Furman made big waves in 2005 with his paper “Wal-Mart: A Progressive Success Story,” which openly supported the Wal-Mart business model and helped the company.

Wal-Mart’s low price-low wage model has made American communities poorer, not richer.  Wal-Mart drives American manufacturing overseas, depresses wages and benefits and routinely does whatever it can to dodge its city and state taxes.

Unfortunately, Jason Furman’s got it wrong.

From Walmartwatch.com

Whoever said that Wal-Mart doesn’t mostly fall on political battle lines obviously doesn’t want to admit the truth.

Obama Changes His Stance on his Website to Reflect "Current Events"

Obama has removed criticism of the Troop "Surge" in Iraq on his Website this weekend.  His website described the Surge as a "problem" that did not reduce any violence.  Obama stuck deep within the democrat party lines and was heavily against the surge.

Obama’s site used to read, "The surge is not working.”  The statement also said that it was the work for the Sunni sheiks to curb the violence, not the US military.

Insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.  Now Obama’s new plan states an "improved security situation" paid for with the blood of U.S. troops.  An Obama aide states they often update the site to reflect changes in "current events.”

Source: www.nydailynews.com

This is not a flip-flop, just a change of Obama’s mind.  People can change their minds.  As new information is found, things change.  He is just adapting to change, that is all.

Reverend Jesse Jackson not only scolded Obama off the air, he uttered the very bad word not at Obama.  Rev. Jackson used an emotionally charged racial slur during a break in a TV interview in which he criticized presidential candidate Barack Obama, Fox News confirmed Wednesday.

Just unbelievable how bad this could be for Jesse Jackson.  Fox News will not release the full transcript. I am against the use of the word by anyone.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/16/jackson.nword.ap/index.html

Foxnews

It is not just Mayor McCue – All public servants fall under the open records law

Who's Visited the White House?  Bush wants it Kept Secret

The group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington is seeking Secret Service records, normally made public, of who has visited the White House and Dick Cheney's residence.  The Bush administration is seeking to keep the records sealed.

The administration wants the documents, often used by journalists and watchdog groups to report on who has access to the leaders of the executive branch, to be declared White House documents, which would seal them from the public for over a decade.

The White House claims that releasing such normally available information would erode President Bush's power.  President Clinton was often undercut by the information, used by his opponents to document visits by Monica Lewinsky and others.

Source: news.yahoo.com

While listening to the Jay Weber show Wednesday May 21, 2008, Jay was talking about how the Democrats have changed after the Vietnam War.  When I would hear my dad talk to and about my Grandpa and how he was a Democrat until after the Vietnam War, I never really understood it.  The Democrats, lead by the Liberals, went on a campaign to hate the military, our military, and work to dismantle it.

It is not the Democrats, but the Liberals that are the problem.  The far left people are the ones that give Democrats a bad name.  In a discussion with fellow blogger Greg Kowalski, I was misinformed that he was a Liberal.  You can be a Democrat and be a Liberal or you can be a Democrat and not be a Liberal.  They are not the same!

Here is a letter from Democrat Joseph Lieberman about his party and a youtube video called “In 52 Secs Why Barack Obama Cannot Win A General Election” that shows Obama's disgust and dismantle of American values.

The far left has taken over the Democrats and have earned the title “Liberals - The Loony Left”.

The Greatest American President in my lifetime so far was once a Democrat, until he felt the Democrats were moving to far off course and switched to become a Fiscally Social Conservative Republican, Ronald Reagan was that man.

I have used many of President Ronald Reagan’s quotes and have had some Liberals and Democrats quote their Presidents, but it is the old Democrats that were not far to the left’s quotes.

Please give the letter a read and watch the video even if you are a Democrat or Liberal since they are both from your party.  Give each one the proper thought.

Democrats and Our Enemies

By JOSEPH LIEBERMAN

May 21, 2008; Page A19

How did the Democratic Party get here?  How did the party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy drift so far from the foreign policy and national security principles and policies that were at the core of its identity and its purpose?

Beginning in the 1940s, the Democratic Party was forced to confront two of the most dangerous enemies our nation has ever faced: Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.  In response, Democrats under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy forged and conducted a foreign policy that was principled, internationalist, strong and successful.

This was the Democratic Party that I grew up in – a party that was unhesitatingly and proudly pro-American, a party that was unafraid to make moral judgments about the world beyond our borders.  It was a party that understood that either the American people stood united with free nations and freedom fighters against the forces of totalitarianism, or that we would fall divided.

This was the Democratic Party of Harry Truman, who pledged that "it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures."

And this was the Democratic Party of John F. Kennedy, who promised in his inaugural address that the United States would "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of freedom."

This worldview began to come apart in the late 1960s, around the war in Vietnam.  In its place, a very different view of the world took root in the Democratic Party.  Rather than seeing the Cold War as an ideological contest between the free nations of the West and the repressive regimes of the communist world, this rival political philosophy saw America as the aggressor – a morally bankrupt, imperialist power whose militarism and "inordinate fear of communism" represented the real threat to world peace.

It argued that the Soviets and their allies were our enemies not because they were inspired by a totalitarian ideology fundamentally hostile to our way of life, or because they nursed ambitions of global conquest.  Rather, the Soviets were our enemy because we had provoked them, because we threatened them, and because we failed to sit down and accord them the respect they deserved.  In other words, the Cold War was mostly America's fault.

Of course, that leftward lurch by the Democrats did not go unchallenged.  Democratic Cold Warriors like Scoop Jackson fought against the tide.  But despite their principled efforts, the Democratic Party through the 1970s and 1980s became prisoner to a foreign policy philosophy that was, in most respects, the antithesis of what Democrats had stood for under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy.

Then, beginning in the 1980s, a new effort began on the part of some of us in the Democratic Party to reverse these developments, and reclaim our party's lost tradition of principle and strength in the world.  Our band of so-called New Democrats was successful sooner than we imagined possible when, in 1992, Bill Clinton and Al Gore were elected.  In the Balkans, for example, as President Clinton and his advisers slowly but surely came to recognize that American intervention, and only American intervention, could stop Slobodan Milosevic and his campaign of ethnic slaughter, Democratic attitudes about the use of military force in pursuit of our values and our security began to change.

This happy development continued into the 2000 campaign, when the Democratic candidate – Vice President Gore – championed a freedom-focused foreign policy, confident of America's moral responsibilities in the world, and unafraid to use our military power.  He pledged to increase the defense budget by $50 billion more than his Republican opponent – and, to the dismay of the Democratic left, made sure that the party's platform endorsed a national missile defense.

By contrast, in 2000, Gov. George W. Bush promised a "humble foreign policy" and criticized our peacekeeping operations in the Balkans.

Today, less than a decade later, the parties have completely switched positions.  The reversal began, like so much else in our time, on September 11, 2001.  The attack on America by Islamist terrorists shook President Bush from the foreign policy course he was on.  He saw September 11 for what it was: a direct ideological and military attack on us and our way of life.  If the Democratic Party had stayed where it was in 2000, America could have confronted the terrorists with unity and strength in the years after 9/11.

Instead, a debate soon began within the Democratic Party about how to respond to Mr. Bush.  I felt strongly that Democrats should embrace the basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our own, because it was our own.  But that was not the choice most Democratic leaders made.  When total victory did not come quickly in Iraq, the old voices of partisanship and peace at any price saw an opportunity to reassert themselves.  By considering centrism to be collaboration with the enemy – not bin Laden, but Mr. Bush – activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party further to the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years.

Far too many Democratic leaders have kowtowed to these opinions rather than challenging them.  That unfortunately includes Barack Obama, who, contrary to his rhetorical invocations of bipartisan change, has not been willing to stand up to his party's left wing on a single significant national security or international economic issue in this campaign.

In this, Sen. Obama stands in stark contrast to John McCain, who has shown the political courage throughout his career to do what he thinks is right – regardless of its popularity in his party or outside it.

John also understands something else that too many Democrats seem to have become confused about lately – the difference between America's friends and America's enemies.

There are of course times when it makes sense to engage in tough diplomacy with hostile governments.  Yet what Mr. Obama has proposed is not selective engagement, but a blanket policy of meeting personally as president, without preconditions, in his first year in office, with the leaders of the most vicious, anti-American regimes on the planet.

Mr. Obama has said that in proposing this, he is following in the footsteps of Reagan and JFK.  But Kennedy never met with Castro, and Reagan never met with Khomeini.  And can anyone imagine Presidents Kennedy or Reagan sitting down unconditionally with Ahmadinejad or Chavez?  I certainly cannot.

If a president ever embraced our worst enemies in this way, he would strengthen them and undermine our most steadfast allies.

A great Democratic secretary of state, Dean Acheson, once warned, "no people in history have ever survived, who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies.”  This is a lesson that today's Democratic Party leaders need to relearn.

Mr. Lieberman is an Independent Democratic senator from Connecticut.  This article is adapted from a speech he gave May 18 at a dinner hosted by Commentary magazine.

In 52 Secs Why Barack Obama Cannot Win A General Election

Obama Claims He's Visited 57 States 5-9-08

While bopping around on the other My Community Now cities sites.  I came across this link and story on Franklins’:

Police Officer Told to Remove U.S. Flag Decal From Locker

We do have a policy in place that prohibits anything posted on lockers," Franklin Police Chief Rick Oliva

See that is when a policy can and should be changed.  It is a policy/rule, which can be changed and broken.  It is not as if it is against the law --- yet I guess.

I guess there is a limit to the amount of U.S. flags they can have on display.

Obama no flag pin, will not say the Pledge with his hand on his heart, will not sing the National Anthem ----  Yeah I guess taking down all U.S. Flags is next.

God help us!!

This is the truth of real voter intimidation, not to be confused with what the liberals claim the republicans are doing about Voter ID.  I covered that in detail in another post “Voter ID”

During the last election in 2006, my neighbor across the street, who normally is a liberal, decided this time he was voting for Mark Green and some other republicans.  He is part of the union and was told that he needs to vote democratic.  He saw me putting up my “Dump Doyle signs” and asked if he could have one, so I gave him one. 

He proudly displayed it.

The next day I saw the sign was down and asked him what happen.  He told me he got worried that the union would do something about his union benefits if they saw the sign.  His union steward lives just up the block from him.  Union power, in part, comes from cowing their members into being afraid of the union power.

Now with all the liberals saying that the conservatives are responsible for voter intimidation here is a real example of them, the liberals, doing it?  He talked to a few of the TV stations and he didn’t want his name used so they didn’t run the story.

-          Ronald Reagan

If Cudahy wants to mimic Bayside

If Mayor McCue wants to be more upscale like Bayside, start with making Cudahy safe and pedestrian friendly like they are doing.  Start small like a sidewalk on Whitnall Ave and Layton.  I guess they are worried of safety and use I understand it is near the school.

Here is an article from foxpoint now.

Sidewalks considered near school

"The unconscious democracy of America is a very fine thing.  It is a true and deep and instinctive assumption of the equality of citizens, which even voting and elections have not destroyed.”  -  G. K. Chesterton, What I Saw I

In "Dreams from My Father", Barack Hussein Obama delves into racial struggles at the Punahou School in Hawaii and the discussions he had with a mixed race classmate named "Ray" in the book.  "Ray" in reality is Keith Kakugawa.

Kakugawa disputes Obama's account of their long discussions, saying they had nothing to do with race but were primarily about over Obama's missing parents.  Other black students also dispute Obama's claims of involvement in racial matters.

Obama frequently describes his racial awakening which occurred when he saw a magazine photograph that does not exist.  Obama's teachers and childhood friends also dispute his claim to have learned to speak fluent Indonesian in 6 months.

Source: www.chicagotribune.com

Twenty-five states have broader voter identification requirements, and Wisconsin is not one of them.  The Governor thinks this will disenfranchise voters and the senior citizens will no longer get to vote, because it will be to hard and costly.  He claims it amounts to voter intimidation.  He went on to say the people don’t want to be inconvenienced to have to show it. 

I find that funny because of the numerous studies done, two-thirds of Americans, including a majority of racial and ethnic minorities, say the government should make voters show a photo ID.  Something that is that absurdly simple or easy and requires little thought but to show an ID to vote.  We are asked to provide ID constantly in our daily lives.  Voter ID is not to make voting less convenient, but to make it fair.

One would think that voter identification is a no-brainer, and would be good for both parties to guarantee that everybody's votes are being counted and are legitimate.  But that isn’t the case.  Republicans want it and the Democrats don’t.  The GOP is not trying to discourage any legal vote.  That is a myth made up by liberals who know fraud favors their side.  They are not trying to suppress the legal vote; they are trying to abolish the illegal vote. What it will do is help ensure that a liberal and poorly managed election process is as free from fraud as possible.  That should be everyone's goal. There is plenty of fraud; it is always difficult to prove.  So why not do something to minimize it?

Voter ID is just common sense, a “reasonable approach,” and the simplest and most effective way to fight voter fraud (this will not protect against election fraud) and protect the integrity of future elections.  A "vast majority" of Wisconsin voters already have a driver's license or one of the other two acceptable forms of ID.  Many bills have been brought forth to the Governor, to which he voted all of them, that would require voters to show one of three specific IDs: a Wisconsin driver's license; a military identification card; or a state-issued Department of Transportation card, which would have to be issued free.

Governor Doyle and the Democratic lawmakers have charged that any law requiring that voters show a photo ID is racist.  This assertion is as offensive as it is ridiculous.  How is asking voters to prove they are who they claim to be racist?  Democrats obviously don't think much of their constituency if they think people are unable to provide such ID or that getting one free of charge from the state would prove too difficult a task.  All that you need to apply for a state ID is a birth certificate and Social Security number.

This begs a larger question.  How do these elderly people, whom Doyle claims do not have photo IDs, function in today's society?  Are we to believe that none of them drives, buys alcohol, rent movies, smokes, cashes checks or flies?  I find that hard to believe.

If you can get to a polling place, the bank, the grocery store, the doctor, the pharmacy, or the social security office you most likely have the means to get to the DMV.  For those handful of people who truly cannot make this trip through any other means, I’m sure that Voter ID would inspire volunteers to rise to the occasion.  There’s already no shortage of volunteers willing to drive people to polling places.  This is just one more stop along the way.  The idea that asking for the same safeguard at the polling place is neither voter suppression nor racism; it is reasonable.

Is the teller at the bank racist for asking for ID when you cash a check?  Some banks even require a thumbprint.  How dare them.  Is the clerk at the Pick N’ Save a racist for requiring photo ID when you buy beer or pay for your groceries with a check?  Is the pharmacist when he asks you for ID to get your favorite cold medication from behind the counter?  Is the attendant racist for asking for an ID and your ticket stub before you board the plane?  How about the clerk at the gas station when you pick up your smokes? 

I didn't think so and most likely, neither did you.  Any rational person would come to the correct conclusion, just not the Governor and his cronies.  What does that tell you about them?  How about that they are crooks, or at least don’t want a fair election.  Without an ID, there isn’t much you can do in this state besides vote. 

That is true unless you are a minor in Cudahy looking to buy cigarettes.  Within the City of Cudahy 23.81% of the surveyed retailers with tobacco retail license allowed minors to have access to tobacco products after one of two surveys were performed earlier this month.  Even with a law, requiring an ID to be shown to prove age, if people don’t enforce it or care it will not matter!

Who does this voter ID hurt, homeless people; lacking an address does make that small segment a problem.  At this time, I have no true answer for them.  We run the chance of election fraud if we have the homeless shelters have absentee ballets.  Maybe the answer lies it either they don’t get to vote (which they have the right to vote) or we start to register the homeless and have a database on them.

It does hurt one other class of people who lost the right to vote and that is convicted felons not served.  At least 82 felons illegally voted in Milwaukee in 2004.  In some states any convicted felon cannot vote.

Maybe the true answer is to have a national ID card for voting or pass a constitutional (National or State) amendment requiring citizens to show a photo ID prior to voting.  This would be passed by the Governor’s vote powers, just as the gay marriage ban did. 

Now, what is the difference between "voter fraud" and "election fraud?” 

"Voter fraud" is an individual who casts an illegal vote thus committing "voter fraud.” 

Examples of this are: someone who is too young to vote; someone who is not a citizen; someone who is not allowed by the state to vote because of punishment for a felony conviction not served; someone who claims to be someone they are not; someone who seeks to vote more than once in an election; someone who does any of these things and casts a vote, commits "voter fraud.”  The difference is that "voter fraud" occurs one vote at a time.  It does not even have to involve criminal intent. 

"Election fraud," on the other hand, is a concerted effort to significantly change the vote totals, and thus alter the outcome and steal the election. 

This is what was done in Florida with “Dimpled Chads” “Hanging Chads” or “Pregnant Chads.”  I feel much safer letting a machine with no political affiliation recount votes when needed.  I know what the definition of lying is.  You can never get into the mind of a voter if they were not able to vote correctly.  If you cannot follow directions correctly, then your vote should not count.  I am sure the law of averages stipulates the equal amounts of people on both sides will make the same mistake, thus canceling each other out.

In the end, Democracy does not work as long as confidence in the election process is compromised.  Democracy does work when there are enough safeguards in place to end and discourage attempts of fraud and corruption.  A fair election is what we should all demand; it is just too bad that is not what some people want!

As Mark Belling said, “The most important recommendation in the police report is the call for photo identification for voters - a bill Doyle, Barrett and the rest of the Democrats are fighting this very week to kill.  This is not a coincidence.”

Democrats, Republicans Get in Shouting Match at News Conference

WI State Senator-7th District

Jeffrey Plale  1-800-361-5487

608-266-7505

Sen.Plale@legis.wisconsin.gov

What we have found in this country, and maybe we're more aware of it now, is one problem that we've had, even in the best of times, and that is the people who are sleeping on the grates, the homeless, you might say, by choice.

- Ronald Reagan

Florida, Michigan seek exit from Democratic penalty box

Will the recount state become the re-primary state?

Will voters in Michigan have their say in picking a Democratic candidate for president?

Political leaders in Florida and Michigan are talking about making sure voters in their states are included when it comes to choosing the Democratic nominee.

Both states held their Democratic presidential preference primaries early, in January. For that, the Democratic National Committee followed through on its warning and stripped both of their delegates for violating party rules by scheduling their primaries too early.

Ok here is a major problem with all of this.  All of the delegates and state officials knew that moving the primary date would void their counting.  That was the rules made way before any of this posturing.

Hillary learned from Al Gore, just sue; get a judge to legislate from the bench (remember separation of powers).  So Hillary bought ads (not campaigning) while Obama did not because the votes would not count.

Hillary all along was going to fight this in court.

The court should respect the separation of powers, defer to the legislative branch, and resist the temptation, but they will not because most of the judges in power are liberal judges that think everything is open to interpretation just as former President Bill Clinton asked what does the word “IS” mean?  Judges are not to right a wrong, but follow the rules and laws that are established.

Just like Al Gore, every vote should count argument and it was not fair for the voters to be penalized.  The lesson here is if you don’t get the end result, ask for a do over or that the rules are not fair.  Bang a drum that votes will become disenfranchised if their votes don’t count.  Mistakes in voting have been going on since voting started, if in a football a referee makes a bad call and days later acknowledges the error, should the game or out come be changed.  It was not fair for the players or the team.  Not all calls are reviewable.  

Two questions for you!

One - If Hillary had a very big lead and had it locked up would this be in play?

Two – If the republicans did this how would the media view this?

Ok, three questions – Is it fair to change the rules in the middle of the game because you may lose?

Saturate-Desaturate Process Darkens Obama in Clinton Attack Ad

Internet Clinton critics are accusing them of deliberately darkening an image of Barack Obama in their latest attack ad.  Shown on the popular website DailyKos are identical images of the same picture with one having an obviously darker tone.

According to Jay Carson, a Clinton spokesman, the darkening was a result of a common production technique known as "saturation-desaturation".  Mr. Carson said both campaigns use this technique and no hidden agenda was behind the Clintons doing so.

Bloggers have compared the Clinton's darkening of Obama's picture to Time Magazine doing the same thing with an image of OJ Simpson after his murder arrest in 1994.  There have been no statements pertaining to the allegations from the Obama camp.

I just wonder if the media has adjusted the color on Condoleezza Rice at anytime?  She would make a great President or Vice President.  I know she said she doesn’t want to run, but I think she will be on the ticket as Vice President.  That is my prediction.   

Source Here