LonePalm Profile

St. Marys, GA

Left Loses Big in Citizenship-Verification Supreme Court ...

The big deal here is that the states do not have to automatically accept the Federal Registration. They are allowed to further verify a prospective voter's citizenship. Why are you NOT concerned that NON citizens might be trying to vote?  (17 hrs ago | post #7)

St. Marys, GA

Left Loses Big in Citizenship-Verification Supreme Court ...

First, Arizona can simply push the state forms in all state offices and online, and keep those federal forms in the back room gathering dust. When you submit a state form, you have to prove citizenship. Thanks to Justice Scalia, that option is perfectly acceptable. Loss for the Left. Victory for election integrity. You might say, “That’s a small victory.” Nonsense. This was the whole ballgame to the groups pushing the Arizona lawsuit. They lost, period. Next, when voters use a state, as opposed to a federal, form, they can still be required to prove citizenship. The federal form is irrelevant in that circumstance. After the decision today, states have a green light to do double- and triple-checking even if a registrant uses the federal form. The Left wanted the submission of a federal form to mean automatic no-questions-asked registration. This is a big loss for the Left because now states can put suspect forms in limbo while they run checks against non-citizen databases and jury-response forms. Another significant victory in today’s decision. The Left wanted to strip them of that double-checking power. The decision today is a great example of how conservatives can be distracted by squirrels running past. It is understandable and forgivable because they aren’t daily immersed in the long-term election-process agenda of the left-wing groups. Nor do they daily involve themselves with the details of election process. But having been in the “preemption wars” for nearly a decade, I can assure you this case is a big win, even if it doesn’t appear so at first glance. http://pjmedia.com /jchristianadams/2 013/06/17/left-los es-big-in-arizona- supreme-court-case /?singlepage=true *** The news that the states don't have to automatically accept all of the information on the Federal form is huge. This means that there is nothing to prevent them from requiring additional proof that a person is, indeed, a citizen.  (Yesterday | post #2)

St. Marys, GA

Left Loses Big in Citizenship-Verification Supreme Court ...

PJmedia.com by J. Christian Adams Something perverse happened after the Supreme Court’s decision today invalidating citizenship-verifi cation requirements in Arizona for registrants who use the federal voter registration form. The Left knows they lost most of the battle, but are still claiming victory. That’s what they do. Election-integrity proponents and the states are saying they lost, but don’t realize they really won. The Left wins even when they lose, and conservatives are often bewildered and outfoxed in the election-process game. Earlier today, I called the decision a nothingburger. After re-reading the case and reflecting a bit more, it’s clear that the decision was a disaster for the Left and their victory cackles are hollow — and they know it. Worse, conservatives dooms-dayers who have never litigated a single National Voter Registration Act case have taken to the airwaves, describing the case as a disaster which invites illegal-alien voting. In the last year, I’ve litigated five NVRA cases and worked on the preemption issues for years, and there is more to cheer in today’s opinion than there is to bemoan. Those complaining about the opinion don’t understand what the Left’s goal was in this case: total federal preemption. On that score, Justice Scalia foiled them; indeed, the decision today was a huge war won, even if the small Arizona battle was lost. From my time in the Justice Department Voting Section, I can remember intimately the wars over some of the preemption issues decided today. The Left essentially believes that anyone who fills out a federal Election Assistance Commission registration form should be allowed on the rolls, no questions asked. There were complex fights over the “citizen check-off box” issues, with the Left wanting the box rendered meaningless, and conservatives and election-integrity proponents believing a registration cannot be processed until a registrant affirms on the box that he or she is a citizen. Before the decision today, here is what the Left wanted: ● Invalidation of Arizona’s requirement that those submitting a federal form provide proof of citizenship with their federal form. Mind you, the citizenship-proof requirement is NOT part of federal law and the Election Assistance Commission does NOT require it in the form they drafted. ● Invalidation of state citizenship-verifi cation requirements when a state voter registration form is used (yes, such forms exist separate from the federal requirement) on the basis of federal preemption. They wanted the Arizona case to invalidate all state citizenship-verifi cation requirements. ● Automatic registration if a registrant submits a completed federal EAC approved registration form, no questions asked. ● Federal preemption on the ability for states to have customized federal EAC-approved forms that differed from the default EAC form. ● Federal preemption over states, like Florida and Kansas, looking for independent information on citizenship to root out noncitizens from the voter rolls. Again, the Left wanted the federal EAC form to be the no-questions-asked ticket to the voter rolls. So what is the score on these five goals after Justice Scalia’s opinion today? Election-integrity advocates are batting .800; left wing groups, .200. And the most insignificant issue of the five is the one issue the Left won. Justice Scalia foiled 4 of 5 of their goals, and the 4 biggest ones. How does it work? The decision today uncorks state power. The Left wanted state power stripped and they lost.  (Yesterday | post #1)

St. Marys, GA

New Helthcare reform

We warned y'all.  (Saturday Jun 15 | post #2)

St. Marys, GA

Sudan, no win

Both sides in Syria need to lose big. The best thing for us, US, would be massive casualties among both groups of fighters. (not civilians)  (Saturday Jun 15 | post #3)

St. Marys, GA

The Anacreon Song

I thought some of you might like to hear the original song that provided the tune for our National Anthem, The Star Spangled Banner. http://www.youtube .com/watch?v=ydAId VKv84g  (Friday Jun 14 | post #1)

St. Marys, GA

Global Warming Assumes Room Temperature

In the interest of full disclosure so that there are not any misunderstandings, I will briefly lay out my political and philosophical biases. 1) I believe in small, strictly limited, constitutional government. Unless the Constitution explicitly says that it is a function of the Federal Government, then the Federal Government should stay out. Most of the functions of the Federal Government should be turned over to the states, such as Agriculture, Education, Housing & Urban Development, Health & Human Services, EPA, Transportation, etc. Just because something should be done it doesn't mean that the Federal Government should be the one to do it. Where there are legitimate Federal issues, they can be handled by small groups under one of the other Cabinet Departments. 2) I believe that government functions should be pushed down to the lowest level possible. Example, States deal with roads and not the Feds. Localities deal with schools and not the state. 3) I believe in a strong national defense because there is evil in the world and it is one of the few unambiguous duties of the Federal Government. 4) I believe in minimal taxation necessary to carry on the strictly limited government. Any government worth taxing people for should be paid for at the same tax rate. This prevents people from voting for services that others will be taxed to provide. 5) I believe the Birthright citizenship should be limited to ONLY those born of at least one US citizen at the time of their birth. 6) I believe in open, legal immigration. If you came here illegally, you should be returned to your native country and go through the legal process. Do we really want people here that think so little of our laws that they would ignore them? 7) I believe in a social safety net, not a hammock. It is your duty to take care of yourself and your family, not Joe Taxpayer. Poor life decisions should be painful. It will prevent you from doing them again and serve as an example to others around you. 8) The First Amendment guarantees Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion. You have a right to speak, you do not have a right to be heard. The only way you can preserve your rights is to defend the Rights of those you don't like. You may not like the 2nd Amendment but if you don't defend it for others you have no expectation that others will defend your rights for you. If you think the Constitution should be changed, fine. There is a process for that. Until then, it's the law. I wonder if any of our liberal brethren will openly and honestly lay out their philosophies.  (Thursday Jun 13 | post #18)

St. Marys, GA

Obama excludes mosques from snooping

While very few Muslims are terrorists, almost all terrorists these days are Muslims. We need to focus our resources where they are most likely to yield results.  (Thursday Jun 13 | post #9)

St. Marys, GA

Obama excludes mosques from snooping

Homeland Insecurity: The White House assures that tracking our every phone call and keystroke is to stop terrorists, and yet it won't snoop in mosques, where the terrorists are. That's right, the government's sweeping surveillance of our most private communications excludes the jihad factories where homegrown terrorists are radicalized. Since October 2011, mosques have been off-limits to FBI agents. No more surveillance or undercover string operations without high-level approval from a special oversight body at the Justice Department dubbed the Sensitive Operations Review Committee. Who makes up this body, and how do they decide requests? Nobody knows; the names of the chairman, members and staff are kept secret. We do know the panel was set up under pressure from Islamist groups who complained about FBI stings at mosques. Just months before the panel's formation, the Council on American-Islamic Relations teamed up with the ACLU to sue the FBI for allegedly violating the civil rights of Muslims in Los Angeles by hiring an undercover agent to infiltrate and monitor mosques there. Before mosques were excluded from the otherwise wide domestic spy net the administration has cast, the FBI launched dozens of successful sting operations against homegrown jihadists — inside mosques — and disrupted dozens of plots against the homeland. If only they were allowed to continue, perhaps the many victims of the Boston Marathon bombings would not have lost their lives and limbs. The FBI never canvassed Boston mosques until four days after the April 15 attacks, and it did not check out the radical Boston mosque where the Muslim bombers worshiped. The bureau didn't even contact mosque leaders for help in identifying their images after those images were captured on closed-circuit TV cameras and cellphones. One of the Muslim bombers made extremist outbursts during worship, yet because the mosque wasn't monitored, red flags didn't go off inside the FBI about his increasing radicalization before the attacks. This is particularly disturbing in light of recent independent surveys of American mosques, which reveal some 80% of them preach violent jihad or distribute violent literature to worshipers. What other five-alarm jihadists are counterterrorism officials missing right now, thanks to restrictions on monitoring the one area they should be monitoring?  (Thursday Jun 13 | post #2)

St. Marys, GA

Global Warming Assumes Room Temperature

Science: If you aren't making mistakes you're doing it wrong. If you aren't fixing your mistakes, you're doing it really wrong. If you can admit your mistakes you aren't doing it at all.  (Thursday Jun 13 | post #10)