Myth vs Fact

Myth	Fact
Islam: Religion of peace.	Sahih BukhariVolume 8, Book 77, Number 607 Narrated Abu Musa: While we were with Allah’s Apostle in a holy battle, we never went up a hill or reached its peak or went down a valley but raised our voices with Takbir. Allah’s Apostle came close to us and said, “O people! Don’t exert yourselves, for you do not call a deaf or an absent one, but you call the All-Listener, the All-Seer.” The Prophet then said, “O ‘Abdullah bin Qais! Shall I teach you a sentence which is from the treasures of Paradise? ( It is): ‘La haula wala quwata illa billah. (There is neither might nor power except with Allah).”
Tafsir

In What Alternate Reality are Dead People Voting Not Considered Fraud?

Cross posted from Wake up America

Recently the Indiana Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s Photo ID Law. Despite the lack of actual convictions or prosecutors bringing charges against people that commit the crime of voter fraud, it does happen as is the case with 300 dead people voting.

Proponents of the Voter ID law have long maintained that it would not put an undo burden on voters if the states enacting the voter ID laws made identification available for free to those that cannot afford to obtain one for themselves.

Indiana has such a provision and opponents claim that people that push for voter ID laws are trying to suppress votes.

This is correct in many cases, but not for the reasoning the opponents of the voter ID laws assert.

The votes that proponents of the law wish to “suppress” are the voters that have no actual right to vote. Voting fraud should be suppressed.

Illegal aliens have no right to vote and neither do dead people.

Every legal vote should count. Every person that has the legal right to vote, should have the ability to vote. That basic premise has never been the issue, but a report today makes it clear why the proponents of the Voter ID laws are so convinced that having identification to vote is crucial for fair elections.

The example is Connecticut, where Marcel Dufresne who is a journalism professor at the University of Connecticut, had 11 students in his class investigate “dead voters”.

The results are astounding, but even worse is the reaction of Connecticut Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz.

The result of the investigation showed that 8,558 deceased people were still registered on Connecticut’s voter rolls, yet that doesn’t mean they voted right?

300 of them did.

Journalism professor Marcel Dufresne, at the University of Connecticut, led a class investigation into dead voters and said his group of 11 students discovered 8,558 deceased people who were still registered on Connecticut’s voter rolls. They discovered more than 300 of them appeared somehow to have cast ballots after they died.

“We have one person who appeared to have voted 17 times since he died,” Dufresne said.

Even Dufresne’s conclusion when he says that “there is no evidence of any election fraud”, is at issue as well as Bysiewicz’s assertion that “actually no dead people voted”.

Her next reported remark is the astounding one though.

“I want to be very clear about that,” she said, explaining that while votes were cast and counted in the names of the dead, “there was no voter fraud at all in the state of Connecticut.”

“Did we have clerical errors where the wrong voter was crossed off? Yes,” she said.

Votes were casted and counted in the names of the dead but that did not constitute voter fraud?

In what alternate reality does she live in where dead people can cast a vote and have it counted but it isn’t considered fraud?

Are they climbing out of their graves and voting?

Who cast the vote? Who walked into the booth and filled out the appropriate forms and pushed the appropriate buttons?

They even spoke to the daughter of one of those dead voters. The voter’s name was Jane Drury and she voted in last year’s election in Stonington, Connecticut….. the only problem with her voting last year is that she died eight years ago.

Her daughter, Jane Gumpel, said, “I was surprised because this is not possible.”

Connecticut is not the only problem though, it was simply an example.

In Washington State, Republican Dino Rossi ran for governor in 2004, and lost by only 133 votes. Officials confirmed that the names of 19 dead people somehow cast ballots. Rossi is running this year for governor and reflected on his experience in 2004.

“It was the closest governor’s race in U.S. history. After the fact we found a number of dead people voted. I don’t know how they voted — you have to talk to Shirley MacLaine about that,” Rossi said.

Dead people going to the voting booths and casting votes is a problem. One which enacting strict Voter ID laws could limit the damage done from it.

As of now, more than 20 states have passed some sort of law requiring a form of identification at the polls, but very few with Indiana’s strict guidelines which require a photo ID, instead of forms of identification that do not have a photo.

The states that require a photo ID are, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, and South Dakota.

The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Indiana’s voter ID law has spurred other states to propose stricter laws themselves.

We need photo identification to buy alcohol and cigarettes and yet people argue that needing an ID to be able to vote is unfair?

What alternate universe do they live in where they would argue that a system that would stop dead people from voting is bad?

Do they want dead people to vote for some reason?

.

Joseph Lieberman Criticizes Obama’s Judgment And Experience

Cross posted from Wake up America

Joseph Lieberman (ID-Conn.) questioned Barack Obama’s judgment and experience regarding Israel, Iran and National Secuirty today following Obama’s speech this morning at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC.

It has been reported that Hamas and The Palestinian Authority both objected to Barack Obama’s pro-Israel words today at the AIPAC, but there was someone else that took issue with Obama’s words and who implied strongly that those words did not match previous comments of that Obama has made. (I guess Hamas is going to take back its endorsement of Barack Obama now?)

That someone is Joseph Lieberman.

Some things happened today to which ended in an “intense, three-minute conversation” between Barack Obama and Joseph Lieberman.

For those unaware, Joseph Lieberman is the Independent Senator from Connecticut, formerly a Democrat. Lieberman caucuses with the Democrats with almost everything except National Security issues.

Joseph Lieberman is also an endorser and one of the staunchest supporters for John McCain in his presidential campaign.

Lieberman participated today in a Republican conference call hosted by the McCain campaign where it is said he “attacked” Barack Obama regarding Obama’s foreign policy comments, present and past comments, saying, “Senator Obama argued today that American foreign policy in recent years has essentially sort of strengthened Iran. If Israel is in danger today, it’s not because of American foreign policy, which has been strongly supportive of Israel in every way. It’s not because of what we’ve done in Iraq, it’s because Iran is a fanatical terrorist expansionist state.”

It is reported that Lieberman took center stage after Obama’s speech and also mentioned a certain “disconnect” between Obama’s past statements and his speech at the AIPAC today.

“To be specific, I was troubled earlier in the campaign season when Sen. Obama compared Iran and other rogue and terrorist states to the Soviet Union, and minimized the threat represented by Iran. I think that’s wrong. Today he said he thought Iran represented a grave threat. I think the statement he made today was right.”

Lieberman then brought up the Kyl-Lieberman amendment that labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization, which passed the Senate in a bipartisan manner with 29 Democratic Senators voting for it, but Barack Obama did not.

“That measure was supported by three-fourths of the Senate, including Sens. Reid, Schumer, Durbin and Clinton. Sen. Obama opposed it, saying it was saber-rattling referring to the threat of military force. If you look at the Kyl-Lieberman amendment as it was passed, it has none of that in it regarding military action. I still hope he will say that vote was a mistake and he will support that resolution.”

The Kyl-Lieberman amendment can be found here. (PDF File)

You can also access that amendment here, just scroll to S11911 and it will bring up the text of the amendment.

That amendment passed with a 76-22 vote.

These comments were made after Lieberman had already congratulated Obama for securing the Democratic nomination and the report of the Obama/Lieberman exchange shows the next event happening as follows. Via Roll Call (Subscription required)

Furthermore, during a Senate vote Wednesday, Obama dragged Lieberman by the hand to a far corner of the Senate chamber and engaged in what appeared to reporters in the gallery as an intense, three-minute conversation.

While it was unclear what the two were discussing, the body language suggested that Obama was trying to convince Lieberman of something and his stance appeared slightly intimidating.

Using forceful, but not angry, hand gestures, Obama literally backed up Lieberman against the wall, leaned in very close at times, and appeared to be trying to dominate the conversation, as the two talked over each other in a few instances.

Still, Obama and Lieberman seemed to be trying to keep the back-and-forth congenial as they both patted each other on the back during and after the exchange.

Afterwards, Obama smiled and pointed up at reporters peering over the edge of the press gallery for a better glimpse of their interaction.

Obama loyalists were quick to express their frustration with Lieberman’s decision and warned that if he continues to take a lead role in attacking Obama it could complicate his professional relationship with the Caucus.

This latest exchange has some bringing up a topic that has been floated before, about Joe Lieberman becoming John McCain’s running mate. It is doubtful to many that McCain would do that, but every once in a while there is a buzz about it throughout the blogosphere.

It also bears noting that Joseph Lieberman is not the only one noticing Barack Obama’s “evolving” positions regarding Iran.

ABC News and ABC’s Political Radar, both took an in depth look at Obama’s past statements on Iran and found them to be continually changing.

Cross posted at Digital Journal.

.