The vote-fraud-addicted Democrats in the Washington House of Representatives have proposed this bill to make voting easier for illegal immigrants who don't speak English: HB 2594 "Providing assistance to non-English speaking voters"
The Senate Republicans have proposed SB 6333 "Requiring photo identification at the polls" It makes sense, except for the part about getting to vote a provisional ballot if you don't have ID. The pro-fraud Democrats will undoubtedly object to the photo ID requirement, equating it with Mississippi ca. 1960 or some other over-the-top nonsense. Voting fraud advocates sued in federal court to stop Georgia's photo ID requirement, calling the $20 fee for state ID a "poll tax". If the $20 fee is too expensive for some, that is an argument for means-testing the ID fee, not for disallowing the requirement to show ID at the polls.
Senate Democrat bills SB 6362 "Modifying voter registration provisions" and SB 6134 "Allowing canvassing boards to issue notices of civil infractions" will also facilitate voting fraud by obstructing and deterring legitimate voter registration challenges.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 12, 2006 12:00 PM | Email ThisNow all of my migrant apple pickers will be able to vote! What a bunch of horse-pucky! How's a conservative like me gonna keep my GOP cohorts in office if my little picker-oonies go and vote demacratic?
I say, if they cain't understand the ballot, they cain't vote...especially if it means more demacratic votes.
Posted by: rossi too on January 12, 2006 12:12 PMNo. They should be able to read and understand the official language of the country in which they reside.
Question: Have you ever had difficulty in discerning the true meaning of certain initiatives on the ballot, having to read them several times in order to understand them? I have. How can we be sure that a Chinese or Spanish or Vietnamese or Russion translation of these conveyes the proper meaning? We can't and we shouldn't.
English is the official language of the United States. Washington is one of these United States. What's the debate?
Posted by: Larry on January 12, 2006 12:14 PMYou RightWingNuts want to prevent every possible Democratic voter from getting to the polls. Homeless unemployed people will vote for Democrats and thereby be raiding your pockets for more handouts.
The standard is, and has been, a signature verification of identity. Placing more road blocks will only serve to disenfranchise even more voters, but that is your ultimate goal. What is next, a minimal education standard and a passing grade on an apptitude test? Perhaps we can require proof of employment and home ownership as requirements to vote. Then you will have the voter base that you RightWingNuts can live with. Give me a break.
Earth to RightWingNuts....come in?
Posted by: My Left Foot on January 12, 2006 12:19 PMLarry is on my side! If they cain't understand, they cain't vote!
Thanky too that 'ol indapendent/demacrat timmy sheldon is voting GOP agin this season. Mebby he'll stop all this homosetsual equality crapola too.
Posted by: rossi too on January 12, 2006 12:21 PMI did not say that all people who lack mastery of English are illegal immigrants, only that this bill would make it easier for illegal immigrants to vote. It would also make voting easier for legal immigrants who are ineligible to vote. Very, very few citizens do not have sufficient grasp of English to vote. This bill would only (a) facilitate voting by non-citizens, and (b) advance the spread of linguistic separatism, neither of which is healthy. This bill also discriminates in favor of the particular language minorities which happen to meet its odd and narrow criteria.
Better that the government not pick and choose among linguistic minorities for special favors. Any private organization that serves a particular ethnic community is free to publish a voters' guide in its language that helps its community understand the English ballot.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on January 12, 2006 12:21 PMIn Washington State, and also for federal elections, you need to be a US citizen to vote.
If you've have lived your entire life in the United States as a citizen, then you should already know English by the time you reach voting age.
If you are an immagrant who became a naturalized citizen, you needed to pass an English proficiancy test before you were sworn in.
Therefore, all people who are legal to vote should already know English, so why is this bill necessary?
Posted by: Mike H on January 12, 2006 12:22 PMAfter all, it's not like non-citizens will be voting, right?
Posted by: chunkstyle on January 12, 2006 12:27 PM
And furthermore that one must be a US citizen in order to vote?
There are exemptions to the English requirements, but one must be over fifty, and have lived in the US for more than 15 to 20 years. In those cases, the individual must take the civics test with the aid of a translator, which they must provide themselves.
If they've lived in the country for over fifteen years, and haven't managed to pick up enough English to comprehend a ballot (I'm not going to get into the problem of understanding the candidate's positions), wouldn't it be sufficient to allow them to utilize their translator at what few polling places there are left?
If they're voting by mail, they can have the ballot translated for them in the comfort of their own home by whatever relative actually deals with the rest of the country for them. They could even have that relative fill out the ballot for them. Why not? It's not like there will be much difference. Their relative-translator could be telling them that one of the candidates is going to be handing out stacks of twenties after they win, and how would this non-English speaking voter know any different?
So what kind of assistance is legitimately needed?
Thanks for the correction. Where can I find that copy of the U.S. Constitution in German in the Library of Congress? ;)
I suppose if we decided to make English the official language of the U.S., we'd face a backlash from the same type of people that favor this bill - including My Left Foot and Rossi Too.
I stand by my comments, however. I don't believe that 'John Kerry' would be listed as anything other than 'John Kerry' in any language. But the requirement to precisely translate all the initiatives on the ballot into a number of different languages is too costly and too difficult to maintain.
Posted by: Larry on January 12, 2006 12:31 PMTake the bus.
Posted by: Mike H on January 12, 2006 12:37 PMNonetheless, this is a bad legislation that will only help those who are willing to cheat.
Posted by: C. Oh on January 12, 2006 12:41 PMNice to know that my Costco card will qualify me to vote. And now you are adding that I have to have a credit card too. I did not think my credit score could disqualify me from voting. You RightWingNuts are tougher than I thought.
Not everyone has a credit card, a checking account or a membership at Costco. I realize the majority of voters are mainstream, but we can not leave behind those that are not.
Posted by: My Left Foot on January 12, 2006 12:43 PMNice to know that my Costco card will qualify me to vote. And now you are adding that I have to have a credit card too...
First off, get your facts straight... katomar said that, not me. Try actually reading what was written. Second, his point was that you have to have photo ID for to cash a check, use a credit card, or buy cold medicine, not that you can show a credit card to vote.
Please read what people actually wrote next time before you make yourself look like a fool...
Posted by: Mike H on January 12, 2006 12:50 PMNote the requirements for language assistance:
"(a)(i) More than three and three-fourths percent of the voting-age citizens in a county belong to a single language minority community and have limited English abilities; or (ii) More than seven thousand five hundred voting-age citizens in a county belong to a single language community and have limited English abilities;"
In any of the "single language minority" communities do we have an accurate count of how many are citizens and how many are immigrant (legal or otherwise)?
Does anyone really believe that the county governments are really going to separate the citizens from the non-citizens?
How does this law match up with the U.S. Citizenship an dImmigration Services requirements?
a period of continuous residence and physical presence in the United States;
residence in a particular USCIS District prior to filing;
an ability to read, write, and speak English;
a knowledge and understanding of U.S. history and government;
good moral character;
attachment to the principles of the U.S. Constitution; and,
favorable disposition toward the United States.
There is an English exception:
What if I cannot meet the English or
civics requirements? Certain applicants,
because of age or disability, have different
English and civics requirements.
Age — There are three important
exemptions for testing based on age:
(a) If you are over 50 and have lived in
the United States as a Permanent
Resident for periods totaling at least
20 years, you do not have to take the
English test. You do have to take the
civics test in the language of your
choice;
(b) If you are over 55 and have lived in
the United States as a Permanent
Resident for periods totaling at least
15 years, you do not have to take the
English test. You do have to take the
civics test in the language of your
choice;
3.75% of voting age in a single language community.... So, based on the registered voters list from 2005, if Garfield County has just 57 people in the category, they must print bilingual ballots, hire bilingual staff and poll workers, etc. Doesn't sound like a very fiscally responsible bill either.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on January 12, 2006 12:51 PMStefan---
At some point, it would be helpful to Chronicle all the examples of unfair/illegal voting practices you have uncovered and post it somewhere PERMANENTLY so all of us can e-mail it to our friends on the RIGHT and the LEFT. I know it is a pretty big project, but I have over 200 names on my e-mail list....and many of them have as many or more names. Associations can e-mail members etc. I have seen how a well chronicled e-mail can circulate. It's amazing.....and worth a try. I would send a copy to every media outlet in the State.....that would be a great list to circulate too!
All you can do is what is in your control....right?
I knew someone was going to say that...
If you can't afford bus fare, then you couldn't afford to go to the library or elections department to pick up the voter registration form. You also couldn't afford a computer or internet service to download the registration form (or the paper to print it on).
If that is the case, you have far bigger and more pressing problems you need to be worrying about than whether or not you can get a photo ID to vote.
Posted by: Mike H on January 12, 2006 12:58 PMNot that it matters with all mail voting....
I wonder, how much would it cost to replace polling places with certified handwriting experts?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on January 12, 2006 01:03 PMRenting a video at Blockbuster Video and Hollywood Video typically does. This is such horse-pucky. English is not our official language yet - so sorry no grounds for disqualifying it.
Posted by: KS on January 12, 2006 01:04 PMI am certain that you are sincere in your rantings. I am just as certain that you are wrong. You have a list of 200 email addresses? You know, just 10,000 more and you can sell your list. Make a little money. I am sure someone out there would buy a list of RightWingNut addresses fluffed up with the some lefty addresses that you have gotten from the HA site.
It does not matter how many folks don't have ID. You can't refuse someone their right to vote no matter how much you might want to. I know that world domination is on the RightWingNut agenda, but please, pull your head out. It is simply not going to happen. Lets meet back here in mid November when you are crying about losses in the Congress and still moaning about voter fraud and wishing Dino had not asked for all those recounts.
Posted by: My Left Foot on January 12, 2006 01:06 PMIn Washington State, it is to the Republicans advantage to limit the number of voters.
Any proposal they put forward (e.g. this absolutely ridiculous photo one) will be seen for what it is...a blatant attempt to restrict rights.
Posted by: LovinUSA on January 12, 2006 01:10 PMEver drive? You're REQUIRED to have "papers"- driver's license, proof of insurance, registration.
Ever try to fly lately? You're REQUIRED to have photo ID.
Ever have a job? Social Security number.
These are only three examples of government REQUIRED "papers" you must have to do certain activities. If you aren't doing those activities, then you don't have to have the "papers" with you 24/7.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on January 12, 2006 01:16 PMALL rights carry with them responsabilities. If showing you are who you say you are in order to excercise that right is too burdensome a responability to require of people, then what a truly messed up world we live in...
Posted by: Mike H on January 12, 2006 01:17 PM"I take the time to read a voter's pamphlet way ahead of time and decide exactly which way I want to vote prior to going to the ballot. I read the entire text of the initiatives."
So.....you read the voter's pamphlet in English, correct? Are you willing, as a taxpayer, to foot the bill to have the voter's pamphlet correctly and precisely translated into Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Indian, Russian, Polish, Czech, German, Gaellic, Dutch, Finnish, Swedish, Snohomish, Illiniwek, and any other yet-to-be-determined language? Are you willing to divert limited funds within our state Elections Commission in order to accomplish this? And how can we as English-speaking citizens be absolutely certain that these initiatives have been correctly translated when the various counties in our state cannot reconcile ballots tabulated to votes cast?
Otherwise, you just proved my point.
Posted by: Larry on January 12, 2006 01:21 PMI thought you had all this under control? Now they won't let Lori Sotelo file bogus challenges any more? What in the hell are they thinking?
This is an ugly day in Wershington state history...first the bi-linguals get to vote, then they want to take our right away to challenge voter registrations without proof.
Dammit!
at least we got the picture id requriement in there. i'll just show 'em my sam's club card and they'll let me vote agin.
Applicants for naturalization must be able to read, write, speak, and understand words in ordinary usage in the English language.
From Citizenship requirements.
To vote in Washington you need to be a citizen.
declare that the facts on this voter registration form are true. I am a citizen of the United States,...
From RCW 29A.08.230.
Ergo to vote you are required by law to speak English to vote.
Conversion the logical syllogism is that is illegal to support non-English voting.
Posted by: JCM on January 12, 2006 01:26 PM1. It requires a challenger to notify all political parties (by mailing copies of the challenge). If I have a beef with a neighbor, why is it my responsibility to notify ANY political party?
2. They are changing the definition of a non traditional address. Instead of registering at a public building near them:
A voter who lacks a traditional residential address will be registered and assigned to a precinct based on the location provided, and has the option of using the address of a county courthouse, city hall, or other public building near the area that the voter considers his or her residence.
I guess this makes mailboxes valid locations.
However, this bill does require someone with a traditional address to use that address in registration.
Unfortunately, the bill still requires that the challenger show the address of where the voter actually resides. As shown with the mailbox registrations, this is impossible. The law should have a provision to allow cancellation of a registration is it is proven that a person can not actually reside at the address listed as the residential address.
The language proficiency required for citizenship is minimal -- small, simple words I believe is the standard. I think your beef is not with this bill, but with the administration of the citizenship program, that is, with the federal government.
As to the problem of non-citizens voting, how many non-citizens voted in 2004? My recollection of Stefan's postings on the issue is that he had found two out of nearly three million voters. I'm sure my recollection is dated, so please correct me if it is inaccurate, Stefan.
Posted by: Martin Brody on January 12, 2006 01:50 PMYou are reading too many D talking points. I have not seen anyone on this site that wants to stop anyone voting, as long as they are legally allowed to. You (to use your language of "You RightWingNuts want to prevent every possible Democratic voter from getting to the polls. Homeless unemployed people will vote for Democrats and thereby be raiding your pockets for more handouts") LeftWingMoonbats want to prevent every possible Republican voter from having their vote count by making it as easy as possible for illegal voters to vote and cancel out the Rs vote.
Posted by: fred on January 12, 2006 01:55 PM"To fail to provide a translation of the ballot necessary to a sizeable portion of the population strikes me as a deliberate attempt by the State to prevent those people from voting."
You've got to be kidding me. Currently the voter's pamphlet is printed in English, Chinese, Spanish, Korean, and Russian. Are you willing to foot the bill as a taxpayer to have it translated into any, and possibly every, other language on the planet?
As a frequent traveler to Poland, I'm insulted that it isn't printed in Polish!! Seattle has a sizeable Polish population. We're discriminating against the Polish people and disenfranchising them! As a citizen of Ireland, I think the state is preventing Irish people from voting becuase the pamphlet is not printed in Gaelic! We're discriminating against Native Americans! Where are the pamphlets in Navaho and Iroquois??
Where do we draw the line? Why should we spend limited funds and resources to print in all these different languages when county elections commissions still cannot reconcile votes cast to ballots tabulated?
Posted by: Larry on January 12, 2006 02:06 PMhell, i don't know if my apple pickers are citizens or not. i don't check the id's. i just know they'ze willin to work for a buck an hour. and when or if they get to vote, you just know they'd vote in some libral demacrat to get me to give 'em a raise!
Posted by: rossi too on January 12, 2006 02:09 PMSsshhh! next thing you know, they'll want a GOP language version too, and then everyone will know what the hell we're talking about.
We can't let that cat out of the bag!
Posted by: rossi too on January 12, 2006 02:13 PMBefore you attack a proposal, make sure you know what it says...!
Posted by: Patrick on January 12, 2006 02:51 PM"I wonder, how much would it cost to replace polling places with certified handwriting experts?"
Even if you were able to accomplish feat, it would only tell you who signed the envelope, not who filled out the ballot.
Posted by: RBW on January 12, 2006 02:59 PMhttp://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/georgia/entries/stories/0106/voter_id_bill_r.html
Posted by: Bob in SeaTac on January 12, 2006 03:24 PMWhich is in keeping with our traditional American Democratic values?
Posted by: dan on January 12, 2006 03:40 PMrossi too and all the others are just talking out of their arse. They don't actually take their talking/spewing points to their logical conclusion.
Posted by: Danny on January 12, 2006 03:42 PMThe rest of us understand that the republicans are just trying to assure that illegal votes, cast by anyone belonging any or no party, do not cancel the votes of legal voters, regardless of party (or non-party) affiliation. We also understand that democrats benefit disproportionately from fraudulent or illegal voting in this state and therefore they are against real reform that would actually limit or eliminate it. Its just politics - and the democrats currently have the power to get away with it. Voting reforms crafted by democrats are therefore ineffective by design - the text of the bills under discussion here makes that obvious; it proves the point. That's the truth; it should be the end of the "argument," but the spinning, lying, witless commenting, and pathological ranting will continue - it always does.
Posted by: srogers on January 12, 2006 03:49 PMI have to say that you're right because they won't respond to civil questions about their beliefs. Tells me they really don't know what to think, only what's fed to them.
Claire is absolutely correct.
Liberals work for a system that encourages everyone to participate... including the folks who aren't legally supposed to, even if it means they break the law by voting. Laws don't matter, as long as everyone (including non-citizens, folks registered in other jurisdictions, felons, etc.) get a say... and if they can say it two or three times, all the better. Conservatives work for a system that seeks to limit the participation of those aren't legally supposed to be participating in the first place.
Which do you think is more in keeping with our traditional American democratic values?
Posted by: Mike H on January 12, 2006 03:59 PMI have adjusted your quote so that it truly reflects reality:
Liberals work for a system that encourages and facilitates participation in decision making BY PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT U.S. CITIZENS AND PEOPLE WHO ARE DEAD and conservatives seek to limit THE participation OF PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT U.S. CITIZENS AND PEOPLE WHO ARE DEAD.
Which is more in line with our traditional American democratic values?
Posted by: Larry on January 12, 2006 04:03 PMYou may feel that you have the most compelling evidence and a great case and they just have to disagree with (or worse, ignore) your evidence and your are at risk for a violation.
trey
Posted by: roosi trey on January 12, 2006 04:08 PMLet's say the "evil" Republicans get their way and succeed in their "oppression of the masses" with this bill (yes, I'm being sarcastic)... if one were to not have a valid ID when the vote, could they still vote with a provisional ballot?
If so, and no one is then being prevented from voting, what's the problem then?
Posted by: Mike H on January 12, 2006 04:38 PMFrom SB 6134:
"primarily considered the voter's political belief, political activity, or any characteristic protected by the law against discrimination under chapter 49.60 RCW; or (4) issued a challenge in bad faith or in an effort to intimidate, harass, or otherwise deter a properly registered voter from voting."
I think this form of wording should be used to ban the third party practice.
I think that any person that was contacted by the third party and was denied a chance to fix their signature issue has a valid claim to a civil rights violation.
I also think that no auditor should be allowed to turn over to third parties the responsibility of notifying voters of issues with their ballots.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on January 12, 2006 05:13 PMAre you really admitting that the WA and/or Natl Democratic Party is really buying homeless people's votes with government handouts?
Is that not in itself vote fraud?
and you know what: none of you nutburgers had any problems with that lie. the problem with you is that you are so convinced that you are right that , for you, the end justifies the means.
Posted by: clay shaw on January 12, 2006 06:31 PM29A.32.010
Printing and distribution
The secretary of state shall distribute the voters' pamphlet to each household in the state, to public libraries, and to any other locations he or she deems appropriate. The secretary of state shall also produce taped or Braille transcripts of the voters' pamphlet, publicize their availability, and mail without charge a copy to any person who requests one.
As for people fearing others being denied the right to vote without photo ID, I say BS. I am denied the right to carry a concealed weapon without carrying all sorts of papers, and that is a right guaranteed by one of those amendments in our Constitution.
The voter rolls in this state are a national disgrace. What we should do is start over by requiring every one to re-register with proof of citizenship and photo ID. As for your predictable hue and cry about the elderly and infirm not being able to get to the official places to re-register, that can be handled through senior centers and nursing homes. I've been down this road helping elderly relatives get the help they need to vote in a timely manner, so I don't want to hear any whining about not understanding the situation. Absentee voting should be limited. Maybe with fewer ballots the election clowns wouldn't have to take off their shoes to help them reconcile what comes in with what went out.
Posted by: Burdabee on January 12, 2006 06:48 PMTry being clever again. That last attempt fell way short. No star for you.
Posted by: Danny on January 12, 2006 06:50 PMHere's a concept; Stop hiding behind lieing, cheating because you think you'll get ahead, not holding voters or politicians accountable for anything and try a new approach by using honesty and integrity in your message and you'll get alot farther. Your party may be ahead right now, but the lead is melting away especially now with the Legislature in session.
Posted by: KS on January 12, 2006 07:01 PMThe liberal's who post to this site have ID. The homeless have ID to purchase their alcohol, cough medicines, cigarettes, etc.. My children were assigned Social security numbers at their birth! If you rent, purchase anything by check or credit card, purchase restricted items, etc...you have identification.
If you attend a public school - 7th grade or higher - you are given a student ID card!
If you've been arrested, hospitalized, sued...you've been identified! You are in the system somewhere.
Anyone who claims that poverty and/or some fantasy of "complete" privacy excludes them from an ID requirement in America - is probably in an extreme state of paranoia and wouldn't risk voting anyway! In those few isolated cases - they disenfranchise themselves!
The fact is - in this corrupt state of Washington - everyone who votes, must show valid identification! Period! We can't trust voters otherwise. Period. Does this remove the opportunity of fraud? No. It just lessens it. Unfortunately - our corrupt liberal legislature and our corrupt Ron Sims and King County elections department have found numerous ways to continue to commit fraud. They have purposely enacted several new systems (ie; All Mail voting, etc.) that will increase their abilities to create "voter intent" without audit and oversight.
Requiring ID and restricting illegal immigrant's from registering to vote are only the beginning of serious election reform.....We have a long way to go...and the state Democrats aren't going in our direction.
Posted by: Deborah on January 12, 2006 07:15 PMIf that were corrected, I wouldn't have an issue with passing the language bill given the current political climate. I would also then support legislation creating an official language for government business as well. This idea that our culture was created by an amalgam of languages, histories and practices of immigrants does not extrapolate to the idea that we should never define national culture was. The immigrants who largely populated our country in the 19th and 20th century, including my grandparents, certainly never believed this nonsense that they should be cushioned from the perils of everyday life in such a way that it protects their right to nonassimilation.
The theory is, after all, that we're a melting pot. I never understood why the Dems seemed to want to change it to a state where every inclination to actually "melt" should be removed. That's a recipe for cultural fragmentation, not cultural evolution.
Rules on voting have generally gotten much more permissive the Constitution was ratified. At that time, most (all?) states had property requirements and other restrictions on voting. So the idea that restrictions on voting are un-American can be held only by some one who knows little of our history.
And, after the end of Reconstruction, Southern Democrats imposed severe restrictions on voting to reduce the black vote. (The restrictions also reduced the voting by poor whites -- as may have been intended.)
Endemic fraud, especially in the cities, led many states to impose controls on voting, such as registration or mechanical voting machines. Most often, that fraud was committed by Democratic politicians -- sometimes against other Democrats.
So we have gone back and forth, trying to find the right balance between ease of voting and control of vote fraud. In my view -- and it is one held by many nonpartisan vote experts -- we have made vote fraud far too easy, and are getting more of it as a result. I think it certain that fraudulent votes gave Christine Gregoire her margin in 2004 and likely that fraudulent votes gave Maria Cantwell her margin in 2000.
I can understand why dishonest Democrats -- and there are a few -- would like that result, but I can't understand why any honest person, regardless of their party, would. And I will go a little farther: When I see people arguing against common sense checks on fraud such as photo identification, I wonder about their integrity.
There is an illuminating exception to the Democrats' desire to have as many as possible vote, the military. Some Democrats, notably in Florida in 2000, have made considerable efforts to reduce the military vote.
You said a mouth full! Of corse Defeatocrats will Object! What else is new!
It Just figures!
Stefan Sharkansky your blog is invited to: to the 25 year celebration of Reagan Presidency!
Posted by: dcat on January 12, 2006 10:24 PMI personally registered to vote without providing ID, received three ballots in the 2004 election, and was not ask for ID at the polls in the 2005 election.
In KC, they just don't give a crap who you are, you can vote. more than once if you want. (i didn't)
I don't get how people can actually spin this as a good and noble thing.
Posted by: dave on January 12, 2006 10:39 PM
Why should we have to register to vote at all? Isn't that an obstruction to voting? You should be ranting that we shouldn't have to, we should be able to vote for any race/issue anywhere.
Do you believe that Canadians should be able to vote in our elections? If not, what are you going to propose to do to stop them?
Why should the government pay to have other languages printed up? Why don't groups like La Rasa or MoveOn.org pay to have them done? Wouldn't that be best? Also, shouldn't they help pay for those that can't pay for a photo id? Why don't you help?
Or even better, they can take the time to translate the voters pamplet into their language and learn it. THen they will learn english quicker and be able to vote.
Maybe you don't want people to not learn English and thus keep them from bettering themselves? Then you can be a racist that you are (those that always call out race, he's black, asian, Jew, etc. thus a racist. You see everyone by their race rather than who they are, thus a racist...like Kennedy, Feinstien, Gregoire, Sims) This isn't to say you want to string someone up or burn a cross, but you perpetuate a belief that minorities are victims and can't make it......that is incorrect in America and minorities that make it aren't stooges, they are Americans!
OK, let's try and make this State a great state once again by 1st making sure that only Washington Citizens are voting. If that then happens and the society keeps going down the toilet then so be it, but I don't think that will happen if we really have one legal vote for every legal voter.
Posted by: Dengle on January 12, 2006 11:11 PMSomebody either comes to our country or is born here, expecting to enjoy the full benefits of living here, yet they choose not to adopt the English language. How do you suppose that would go over if the average English speaking American moved to another country and refused to learn the native language?
Is it really too much to expect people who live in this country to learn how to read, write and speak English?
Ciy Journal Magazine: The Left's Campaign To Rein In Political Discourse
I hope that Stefan and others on this site pick up on the significance of this story, particularly as it relates to what went on during I-912 and Rep. Jay Inslee.
Fortunately, this is exactly why we should be excited about the timing of the Supreme Court turnover and the appointments of Roberts and soon, Alito. Liberals love to get their panties in a bunch about Roe v. Wade, which was clearly an unconstitutional decision. But compared to what the Soros/ MoveOn.org left has planned with regards to decimating the First Amendment, Roe v. Wade is small potatoes.
There is a reason why it is the "First" Ammedment.
Readers, please, click on the link and read the article above in its entirety, and SP bloggers, please make some posts on this topic.
Thanks, JB
Noooooooooooooooooooo.
There comes a time when talk should cease and action should begin. We spend more time whining about how the legislature is robbing us blind, and yet when the people you elected betray you by voting for the things they said they would oppose, we just go ahead and let them. What changes to the Republican party have we seen since the great betrayal of last session?
Zero. Nada. Zip-a-dee-doo-da.
Do you see the pattern? The most vocal whiners are the ones who support the RINOs simply because they are Republican, and "we just gotta have more Republicans in the legislature." Well, with republicans like the ones you guys support, who the heck needs Democrats?
But what do we do? We continue to back the same spineless dogs over and over again. How many times does one have to pee on the electric fence before arriving at the conclusion that it is not a good idea? It's one thing to have a sense of righteous indignation and dismay over key Republicans suddenly defecting during crucial votes. It's another to keep backing them, as is the case now with so many of the most vocal proponents of the party as it now exists.
It is no wonder that the Democrats at every level of government in this state regard Republicans as a bunch of patsies. Why shouldn't they? Our leaders continue to betray us, and we snivel for awhile and then just bend over and let them do it again.
But God forbid that we should expect our Republican leadership to reflect our core conservative values on the floor of the legislature. Noooooooooo. We are afraid that people won't like us and that we won't be allowed to play in the Olympia sandbox. We should just try to look and act as much like the opposition as we can so we can have reach that all-important d*mned goal of putting a bunch of R's in there. And then you wonder why they keep letting the opposition steamroll them. Here is a clue: because they ARE the opposition.
The WSRP is in desperate need of a RINO-Be-Gone enema. Until that happens, the party will continue to be the Democrats' band whore in this state.
Posted by: ERNurse on January 13, 2006 08:12 AMyou could look it up.
apparently, the people at diebold ( company motto: "all the democracy that fits into our narrow band of awarenes"
bad bob: we don't want diebold touch-screen machines used in snohomish county anymore. they are rigged to make republicans win. that may not be a problem (morally or otherwise), but it is for democrats. you are the liars and election cheats and that is changing in this state. the democrats should sue you for your unfounded allegations and outright lies.
jim miller is the worst. he pretends to centrism and reasonableness, but he's in reality just another blind ideologue -- or he's a lawyer for corporations.
Second, we have seen how effective our calls for federal intervention in our corrupt election system have been. Funny- anyone else hear about a federal investigation? Nope. Neither have I.
Since the Democrats have essentially changed the form of govenment and elections in this state to favor them at every level, and since the federal government is showing a marked disinterest in our predicament, it stands to reason that if relief is going to come to this state, it is up to us to make it happen.
Anybody got any ideas? You sir; in the back row.
"Hey! Let's put more Republicans in the legislature! Oh, wait. They had as much to do with getting us into this crisis as the Democrats..."
We are on our own here. Nobody is going to help us out of this mess but ourselves. There are three choices for us: to lead, to follow, or to get the hell out of the way. My suggestion of options for the RINO supporters among us would be the latter two. You guys have made things bad enough in this state by supporting the traitors with whom we are currently afflicted. You are as much to blame for this mess as anyone else. You have done enough damage for a generation. With Republicans like you, who needs Democrats?
Posted by: ERNurse on January 13, 2006 08:29 AMlet me see, the first count is required by law. the first re-count is required by law. the second recount was requested by and paid for by the queen bitch and her band of thugs.
guess a pinhead can't let the facts get in the way of his talking points.
Posted by: Locked And Loaded on January 13, 2006 09:12 AMWell, well said.
Now let's start with a F*CKING AGENDA!
Not some mamby-pamby, touchy-feely pander to the LEFTY's one but one that starts with the #1 Issue:
TRANSPORTATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How can the R's develop a contract with Washington without addressing specifically what we will do TO EASE CONGESTION!!!!!!!!!!!!
God, let's focus on real issues.
What will we do, how will we pay for it, HOW CAN WE BETTER UTILIZE EXISTING FUNDS!!! Savings, savings, savings. If we can't come up with a better plan than the current one, WHY IN THE HECK WOULD ANYONE VOTE FOR OUR CANDIDATE!!!!!!!
The next issue is EDUCATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ER Nurse....well said.
The problem is we have some very good R's in the Legislature and some Spineless, look-at-me types that water everything down. I know some electeds like DeBolt are trying hard to herd these cats. They would rather discuss hybrid cars and rapists. Things NO ONE would be against...avoiding the tough technical issues.
As for electronic voting machines, I do have hesitations about using them, security being one and audit trail the other, but they are more secure and have a better audit trail than mail.
As for Alito, where was that ruling that he made against the constitution? Please link. Maybe you made a mistake and where thinking about Chucky Schumer.
Also, I was thinking this morning....is Left Foot really Ted Kennedy? Both sound the same....rambling, incoherant and drunk.
Posted by: Dengle on January 13, 2006 09:47 AMDon't get me wrong. I am happy about the Supreme Court nominations, but I still belive we should be on the watch and aggressive is making sure that the suppression of political discourse goes no further.
We should start right here in WA with Rep. Jay Inslee.
As it gets closer to the election, we will make sure that the questions to Mr. Inslee get asked clearly and loudly in as many forums as possible to expose his ideas for what they are, suppression of the First Amendment.
And I suspect that we will even have the help of the left leaning bloggers on this one, as they too stand to be silenced if this kind of legislation goes forward.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 13, 2006 10:17 AMThis isn't merely an 'electability' problem, as some here would insist. This is a cultural problem brought on by the people who have shipwrecked this party for the sake of 'electability.' Well, look where their 'electability' got us.
At what point are we going to flush the toilet on these 'electable' turds?
Posted by: ERNurse on January 13, 2006 06:09 PMFor some unbelievable reason republicans here came to the conclusion that it was necessary to move to the left in order to be elected. Now we begin to see just how wrong they were.
Posted by: jaybo on January 13, 2006 11:29 PMAn initiative to repeal this kind of crap would be fitting - in time for the November election will not help the Dem incumbent reelection campaign. The opposition needs to communicate this clearly to the voters, though - or the dumbing down phenomenon will occur.
Posted by: KS on January 14, 2006 12:41 PM