It isn't just a "few people scam the system". As long as there's any questionable votes, the integrity of the election can be called into question. My question for you is: are you a lawyer that enjoys having courts waste MILLIONS in tax money after every election to contest over whether this or that vote was fairly cast?!? Voter ID isn't meant to be the perfect solution, as there is none, but if it reduces the costs of elections and improves people's opinion that the election was fair, that's what matters.

That's a silly argument. All laws can be changed someday. The rules of elections are meant to promote fair and impartial elections. Any change that detracts from that can be contested in court and striked down. As others have said, there are reasonable restrictions on the voting franchise, because the laws must preserve the integrity of elections even over the individual privilege of voting. That's why felons can't vote, and you can't carry a concealed-carry weapon to the voting booth even if it is legal elsewhere.

Simple: Voting is a privilege not a right. If you want to exercise your privileges as a legal citizen, you can be expected to carry out some reasonable responsibilities, like acquiring a photo ID. Secondly, requiring the law "prove" everyone has ID before enacting it would be a lawyer's wet dream. All they would have to do is find some rotgut-swilling wino somewhere, check that he doesn't have ID then go to court and stop the law. Repeat as often as desired and the law gets tied up in courts for decades, wasting everyone's time.

I think you're misunderstanding something. Voting is a PRIVILEGE of legal citizens, not an inalienable right. For example, a felon can still exercise his free speech right by writing to a newspaper but all states bar felons from voting until after time served and their privilege is restored. Ergo, there can be restrictions on voting unlike freedom of speech, which requires a VERY compelling reason restrict it (ex. yelling fire in a crowded theater).

A good column. In a way this goes right to the heart of the Left-Right divide. Liberal Democrats think all government power is "good" because they think themselves as good. True conservatives, as I feel that I am one, believe that government power is just power, a tool for good OR evil. The problem is that once a power is granted or assumed by Government, it is not easy to retract it even if that power does great evil. Pres. Obama railed against Bush and labeled McCain "Bush-lite" primarily for their War on Terror policies. But once in office, Obama enjoyed those same powers that were too hastily given over in the aftermath of 9/11. This "preemptive execution" is just another stumble down a path we shouldn't have...

I second those opinions of Hollywood. It has long since stopped producing anything of value, even good entertainment. These "guests of Castro" are just vanity personified, and I shudder at those poor souls that actually admire or idolize these beautiful but empty people. These days I don't bother with movies. The new ones are all either CGI kids movies, superhero adaptations, or sometimes a movie with a unique story spoiled by stuffing it with watered down uber-liberalism (if all the cops or US military are bad guys, it's one of those). The few good movies released recently are old books or TV shows redone for the silver screen, demonstrating the complete emptiness of any creativity in Hollywood.

Nobody is being mandated to use birth control, yes. But a mandated coverage means everyone pays for the option, whether they think it is moral or not. Get that thorough your thick skull. Honestly, Obama paraded this new coverage like women were being turned away from drug store counters without their pills for lack of a .Gov approved HMO. It's a small out of pocket expense, and if anyone needs to pay that expense often then it's a lifestyle problem not a financial one.

Who are the least among us? The jobless right now. The ones that NObama pleads he's looking to help, even as he just killed a project that would have provided thousands of jobs. I hear in liberal schools they teach "self-esteem". How much self-esteem will their graduates have when they find no jobs, or end up working part-time temp jobs that don't advance their careers? Obama is going down this November, if only because the massive wave of college students and white collar employees that voted for him in 2008 will turn away from him after these failures.

You don't need to go to an Ivy League university to learn economics. Just stop by a library and pick up a basic Economics book, like Thomas Sowell's books including "Basic Economics, 4th Ed: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy". As for Germany, they do have an excellent economy but they are hitched to the Euro bandwagon, thus stuck together with spend-thrift countries like Spain, Greece and Italy. Germany's situation would be like living near a crazy hard drinking uncle. The uncle racks up enormous debts, drinks all the time, but when the repo man comes to claim his car the uncle comes to your door asking for money "just this once". But giving him money will bring him back later for more money as he's found a sucker to leech off.

The "Clinton Surpluses" were mostly smoke and mirrors. He and Congress borrowed billions out of the SS Trust Fund, and put IOUs in place of the money. Additionally, the projections of future surpluses were just that, projections. They can't take into account events outside of predictable rise in economic activity. Events like the Dot.com bust, 9/11, the crashing of travel and airline industries post-9/11, and so on. I will say that I don't support Republican politicians that talk a good game on campaigns then just pork barrel with the rest of Congress once in office. Democrats are at least marginally honest in that they WANT endless spending sprees.