In one of those all too predictable moments it looks as if another ACORN worker has been indicted for voter registration fraud here in the state of Missouri.

Of course there is spin on both sides of the isle regarding the matter but the following facts remain:

Democrats want people to vote without any sort of mechanism to provide for the integrity of an election.

Republicans in the our state legislature appear less than resolved for tackling the issue head on and providing the necessary monies to fund such mechanisms. Or at least it has in the past.

As with any policy, until those in the elected capacity decide to man up and tackle the issue without preference to what benefits their own projection of power, we are doomed to what ever side effects become present. Of course for Democrats, that might not be a bad thing given their ability to keep counting ballots (and revoting ballots) until they prevail.

This is no joke, except maybe on the voters of Ohio.

The resolutions comes after an Ohio homeless advocate group sued the Secretary of State claiming they (homeless) were being disenfranchised.

Keep in mind this is a battleground state with a very narrow margin of victory for either side, but also has at least 200,000 voters with questionable registrations.

Im in a bit of a production crunch for the next couple of days folks. With that said, there are a few articles which should be noted.

Courts poised to take a radical left turn. This is an excellent article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal which focuses on how Democrats are poised to fill the courts not just with left of center, but radical selections. What people should note is that there could be up to six Supreme Court justice openings within the next eight years and a larger number of lower level vacancies. In fact nine of the thirteen could (will) swing from middle or right to far left.

At the heart of the article is Obama’s radical belief of social justice and redistribution being inserted via judicial fiat through these positions. Constitution be darned.

Funny this issue was never discussed at length during the election cycle, eh?

Politico.com tries to justify bias. I honestly felt like vomiting after reading the article. Honest.

The piece tries to justify their blatant bias for Barack Obama, but side steps and rewrites history in several places during the campaign. At least they let one thing slip:

Still, journalists should do more than just amplify existing trends. A couple weeks back, Politico managing editor Bill Nichols sent out a note to the campaign team urging people to cough up more story ideas that took a skeptical look at the campaign tactics and policy proposals of the Democrat, who is likely to be president three months from now. As it happened, the response was a trickle (though Nichols and Mahtesian came up with some ideas of their own).

Dont you just love it when the press gets all self righteous?

Obama on the Constitution and “wealth redistribution.” This is the audio from 2001 in which Obama defines wealth destribution and his disagreeing with the Constitution’s position of limiting government. In his words, the government should be doing stuff for you.

It should be noted that the Constitution does do something “for” the American citizen, it helps keep government off our back. Of course that isnt what Senator Obama meant. He believes that the Constitution should have been interpreted by the Warren court to address “social injustice” in a different way. e.g. spreading of wealth.

Again, why was this not found by the media at large before now? If they can dig up “Joe” the Plummer’s tax returns, why couldnt this audio file be found and discussed early as it goes to the heart of who Senator Obama is.

Nancy Pelosi employs Orwellian phrase “…if the Democrats win and have substantial majorities, Congress of the United States will be more bipartisan.”

Yeah, you heard that right. Pelosi is actually touting bipartisanship if Democrats take further control of Congress in addition to the White House. If the past two years and Senator Obama’s voting record is any indication, Republicans will be lucky to speak on the floor of Congress.

I suppose you can make those types of remarks when the media is completely controlled by your party though.

Lawyers who supervise voting rights are Obama donors. Another awesome article by the Wall Street Journal, this time we view how the system in charge of keeping the integrity aint.

North Korea threatens to turn South Korea into “ruble.” No explanation needed on this front.

You heard me correctly, in the state of Illinois a dead goldfish was sent voter registration materials from the oraganization “Women’s voices, Women’s vote.”

The materials sent were apparently one of about a million distributed state wide with 63,500 reportedly being returned.

How did the fish’s name get brought up? The home owner indicated that they put the fish’s name down when applying for a phone line.

In either event this should raise valid concerns about the integrity of our voting process and not just be the butt of late night jokes.

Foxnews.com is reporting that Nevada state authorities raided the ACORN state office prompted by on going complaints of voter registration fraud.

Note this isnt a first for the organization which had several members convicted not to long ago here in Missouri.

In this particular case just over 1,800 voter registration forms were submitted with all but six of the names being fake.

Folks, regardless of what you hear - voter registration fraud is alive and well.

Yeah, that slate.

Didnt pick up on it until I was taking a short break to look at stats this afternoon and noticed a little boost.

So what exactly did they pick up on? Meh, just my opinion regarding the voter ID decision recently announced by the United States Supreme Court.

So add to the list of New York Times, Michelle Malkin, The Hotline and National Review - Slate.

Back to work - but before I do so - I would note a piece of the SCotUS decision by Stephen Breyer  as quoted in the same article which got my interested. Apparently Florida and other states have less demanding voter ID laws which allow for various different items to be used (like say an employee badge or student ID).

I am intrigued by that threshold level. I would want to agree with him, but then I think about how easy it would be to manufacture a fake. After all, how many college students fake licenses to get drunk on friday night? Do you think someone willing to break the law in the first place and vote fraudulently wouldnt be motivated at least to that level?

Anyways.

Of course all the whining and gnashing of teeth from those in the Democratic party who willfully incite and participate in voter fraud won’t be happy, but the rest of us in the real world cannot be disappointed in the decision today by the United States Supreme Court to uphold an Indiana voter ID law.

I havent read the decision and dont know much about the precise mechanics of the decision so needless to say I wont comment further at this juncture.

What I will add is that there were numerous cases of voter registration fraud here in Missouri and abroad. To turn a blind eye to this problem would be negelgent.

Do some of the people who claim that poor, elderly voters and minority voters would be unfairly targeted and disenfranchised, have a point? In my opinion no.

I do believe that states requiring IDs should make an ID available free of charge. The catch, of course, is for people to prove how they are via birth certificate and or other documentation. Those kinds of details can be debated.

In the end, however, with thousands of fraudently registered voters filling the rolls there must be a way to verify the voter is who they say they are. Without it such a feature, our democracy will be dead.

Many Democrats understand this and are implimenting far more draconian policies during their current primary to ensure that Republicans do not participate.

My only addition to the conversation would be that there is a strong need to be sure that the law does not go beyond verification of the voter. We must ensure that the voter is able to speak their voice free of intimidation and within the framework established by our founding fathers.

If we leave that framework our democracy again, will be doomed.