Voter Fraud – WMUR’s “Closeup” – INTENT – When a law is based solely on Intent, is it really a law?

WMURAnother clip from WMUR’s “Closeup” where Voter Fraud was the topic.  I did put up an excerpt quoting Grant Bosse from the Josiah Bartlett Center here where the take away was:

“We should just set up voting booths at the airport and at rest stops.”

In reviewing both segments again, the operative word that the Democrat leaning lawyer Martin “Marty” Honigberg and Uber-Progressive (and paid with by outside-the-State monies) Zandra Rice-Hawkins clung to like a life preserver off the Titanic was this: intent.  In essence, both of them incredulously exclaimed, in effect, how can ANYONE know what someone else’s intent about anything is.  Hey, perfect!  Intent in the Progressive redefinition project is similar to that of Harry Potter’s Invisibility Cloak – now you see me and now I have no idea who you are.  Or where.  Or what you think.  Or even if you think.  Because when you use that Democrat Invisibility “Intention” Cloak, not only does it hide’s somebody’s intent, but makes a Democrat go brain-dead.  Or in the vernacular of some – the butt of that phrase “don’t get stuck on Stupid”.  Seemingly, though, with respect to election law, it’s a great place for them to be.

Here’s the amalgam of how the word is used by Marty Honigberg:

  • It’s up to the individual
  • I don’t know WHAT her intention was and unless we talk to her and got inside her head [which we’ve tried to do]  which is something we can’t do

Based on that, Grant had the best summary of this line of thinking:

So they can drive up to my house and stay in my guest room Monday night, they hold a sign at the polls, they vote Tuesday and by Wednesday, what do you know, they’ve changed their mind and they decided to move back to Massachuesetts because under Marty’s interpretation [and then Zandra Rice-Crispies does her best rude Alinsky impersonation and talks all over Grant], that says we can never know what’s inside somebody’s mind

So ask yourself – really, how good is a law that can only be enforced by what’s inside somebody else’s head?  It’s extremely a curious situation – the Party that seemingly wants to take away one’s sense of Liberty and replace it with their sense of limited sense Freedom (that’s it – Freedom via OUR regulations!  We give you the Freedom to follow them – EXACTLY!) want this to be as expansive as their policies on sexual behavior that is being forced on the rest of us (as in “who are you to judge someone else”!) .

How smart is it, then, to have laws, based on the utter nonsensical notion that a law should be based and enforced on what is absolutely unknowable from what the Democrats on the panel said.  They hold that “this is a GREAT law as it is up to each person – thus, everything must be  permitted.”

This is folly and this is madness – laws must be clear, unambiguous, and knowable  – and able to be understood by the common man.  What the Democrats are saying is “you, by definition, cannot understand – nor will you ever” simply because a person can change their mind at any time.  Thus, each person, for voting purposes, can be their own legislature, chief executive, judge and jury – and Democrats say “so?”.

This is just SO GRAND for the State of New Hampshire – right? Right? Yeah?