Tag: vote

A Desperate Obama Calls For Compulsory Voting

On By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

 

 

thKSMRSH0JObama and his Democratic minions are getting more and more desperate to insure that the Democratic Party remains in power.

For a while now, they have been floating the idea of giving non-citizens the right to vote in OUR elections.

Now, President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) has suggested that Americans be FORCED to vote.

…Fox Nation on FoxNews.com reports that

They say the only two things that are certain in life are death and taxes. President Barack Obama wants to add one more: voting.

Obama floated the idea of mandatory voting in the U.S. while speaking to a civic group in Cleveland on Wednesday. Asked about the influence of money in U.S. elections, Obama digressed into the topic of voting rights and said the U.S. should be making it easier for people to vote.

Just ask Australia, where citizens have no choice but to vote, the president said.

“If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country,” Obama said, calling it “potentially transformative.” Not only that, Obama said, but universal voting would “counteract money more than anything.”

Disproportionately, Americans who skip the polls on Election Day are younger, lower-income and more likely to be immigrants or minorities, Obama said. “There’s a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls,” he said in a veiled reference to voter identification laws in a number of states.

Less than 37 percent of eligible voters cast ballots in the 2014 midterms, according to the United States Election Project. And a Pew Research Center study found that those avoiding the polls in 2014 tended to be younger, poorer, less educated and more racially diverse.

Back in September of 2013, economist.com posted an article titled, “Where is it Compulsory to Vote?”. In that article, you will find the following summary…

…in some countries skipping the polling booth can land you in trouble. In Australia non-voters can expect a letter from the electoral commission demanding an explanation for their absenteeism. If they don’t have a good excuse they are fined A$20 ($19). If they fail to pay they can end up in court, where the fine is upped to A$170, plus court fees. Refuse to cough up and they face jail. A survey by Britain’s electoral commission in 2006 categorised three other countries as having “very strict” compulsory-voting regimes. In Brazil and Peru, non-voters are banned from carrying out various administrative transactions (Brazilians cannot apply for passports or sit professional exams, in theory at least), as well as facing small fines. In Singapore, non-voters have their names removed from the electoral roll—which many of them are presumably not too worried by. A host of other countries have varyingly strict rules on voting, along with some curious get-outs. Illiterate people are excused in Brazil and Ecuador; soldiers are excluded in Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala and Lebanon. The elderly are off the hook in several countries. And in Bolivia, where voting is notionally compulsory, married people are enfranchised from the age of 18, whereas singletons must wait until they are 21.

Proponents of mandatory voting argue that democracy is too important to be optional. Others say that compulsory self-determination is something of a contradiction in terms. There are economic arguments on both sides: compulsory voting saves money in campaigns, because parties otherwise splurge vast amounts on “getting out the vote”. On the other hand, enforcing the law clogs up courts and keeps bureaucrats busy, at substantial cost. The electoral consequences of mandatory voting are disputed. Some wonder if introducing compulsory voting in America would favour the Democrats, for instance, just as making it harder to vote seems to make life easier for Republicans. Others suspect that more votes would accrue to the party in power—or simply the candidate whose name appears at the top of the ballot.

And, there lies the rub.

Obama was most definitely floating a trial balloon when he suggested the fascist idea of compulsory voting.

By wrapping the American Flag around this freedom-constricting notion, Obama was covering up the fact that he mistakenly believes that he could fool Americans into backing this current scheme to grab some more voters for the Democratic Party.

Of course, this is nothing new for the Democrats.

I remember, as a college kid of 21, back in 1980, feeling my jaw drop as I read about Rep. Harold Ford, Sr.’s  (D, Memphis) Campaign Staff actually busing people to the polls. And, not just people living in the district, additionally, Ford would send the busses to Nursing Homes as well, with staffers to help the “poor and unfortunate” to pull the right lever in the voting booth.

If Obama were to sign an Executive Order and compulsory voting were to become the law of the land, you would see shenanigans like those I just mentioned, from coast to coast, and in every tiny hamlet in between.

After the nursing homes , the Democratic Buses would probably stop at the cemeteries.

Our Founding Fathers fought hard to give us the gift of Liberty.

However, the thing about Liberty is that it is Freedom with Responsibility…Responsibility to obey our nation’s laws, Responsibility to take care of our families, Responsibility to protect our Liberty, and the Responsibility to fulfill our Civic Duty and vote.

I have been voting since 1980, when I used my first vote to help Ronald Wilson Reagan win the Presidency of the United States.

Nobody had to force me to vote.

As an American Citizen, it was my right and privilege to do so.

Or, not to.

And that is the way that it must remain.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

The 2014 Midterms: Is There a Political Tsunami Approaching?

On By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

AFBrancoWreckingBall1132014Tomorrow is the most important Midterm Election in our lifetimes.

I’m are not being hyperbolic. I am simply stating a fact.

The New York Times reports that

Republicans entered the final weekend before the midterm elections clearly holding the better hand to control the Senate and poised to add to their House majority. But a decidedly sour electorate and a sizable number of undecided voters added a measure of suspense.

The final drama surrounded the Senate, which has been a Democratic bulwark for President Obama since his party lost its House majority in 2010. Republicans need to gain six seats to seize the Senate, and officials in both parties believe there is a path for them to win at least that many.

Yet the races for a number of seats that will decide the majority remained close, polls showed, prompting Republicans to pour additional money into get-out-the-vote efforts in Alaska, Georgia and Iowa. Democrats were doing the same in Colorado, where they were concerned because groups that tend to favor Republicans voted early in large numbers, and in Iowa.

While an air of mystery hung over no fewer than nine Senate races, the only question surrounding the House was how many seats Republicans would add. If they gain a dozen seats, it will give them an advantage not seen since 1948 and potentially consign the Democrats to minority status until congressional redistricting in the 2020s.

In a sign of a worsening climate, Democratic officials shifted money to incumbents in once-safe districts around Las Vegas and Santa Barbara, Calif. And over the weekend, they put more money toward television ads in districts held by Democrats in Iowa and Minnesota, including that of longtime Representative Collin C. Peterson of Minnesota. Though there are fewer competitive House seats than in past elections because of gerrymandering, party strategists were still airing ads in 40 districts.

“It’s a grim environment,” said Representative Steve Israel of New York, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Mr. Israel was spending the weekend pleading with his caucus to contribute to imperiled colleagues to minimize losses. Trying to soften the blow, he noted that losses were expected: The party in control of the White House has lost an average of 29 seats in midterm elections in the last century.

Just two years after he won a second term by a commanding margin, Mr. Obama haskept his distance from the most pivotal congressional races. On Saturday, he was to address a heavily African-American crowd in Detroit to bolster Michigan’s Democratic nominee for governor.

Senate Republicans are confident. A senior party official called Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, on Saturday at his Louisville home and, after running through voting projections, told Mr. McConnell that he would be the next majority leader. Mr. McConnell’s initial reaction was only a long pause.

According to Nate Silver’s blog, fivethirtyeight.com,

The GOP’s chances of winning the Senate are 68.5 percent, according to the FiveThirtyEight forecast, its highest figure of the year.

Among the 20 new polls released Thursday — it looks like there will be no Great Poll Shortage after all — two were principally responsible for Republican gains. The first was in Kentucky, where a SurveyUSA poll for the Louisville Courier-Journal had Republican incumbent Mitch McConnell ahead 48-43 over Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes. The poll represented a shift from SurveyUSA’s previous two polls, which had a 1 percentage-point lead for McConnell and a 2-point lead for Grimes. With SurveyUSA (a highly rated pollster) now more in line with other polls of the state, we have a clearer story in Kentucky. It’s one that probably ends in a victory for McConnell, whose chances of winning are up to 87 percent.

The other poll was in Arkansas, which hasn’t been surveyed as often as other key Senate races. That poll, from the University of Arkansas, found Republican Tom Cotton up by 13 percentage points over Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor. No other poll of the state has shown Cotton with a double-digit lead, but he hasn’t trailed in a nonpartisan poll since Sept. 22. When the choice is between polls that show a candidate with a small lead and polls that show him with a large lead, he’s usually in good shape just a few days before Election Day.

Speaking of which, it’s not too early to look ahead to election night (along with our partners at ABC News, we’ll be covering everything; we hope you’ll join us). The number you’ll be hearing about all night is six — as in, Republicans need to net six seats from Democrats to win control of the Senate.

As we’ve pointed out before, the “net” part of that phrase is key. Republicans will have to win more than six Democratic-held seats if they lose a couple of their own. Their incumbent in Kansas, Sen. Pat Roberts, is only even-money to win re-election (although there’s a chance independent Greg Orman, even if he wins, could caucus with Republicans). The GOP candidate in Georgia, David Perdue, is ahead by only about 1 percentage point against Democrat Michelle Nunn, and that race could go to a runoff. McConnell is likely, but not certain, to survive.

Can the Republicans win control of the Senate and pick up more seats in the House of Representatives tomorrow?

It all depends on the following factors:

1. How mad are American Voters at President Barack Hussein Obama and his Congressional Enablers in the Democrat Party?

Since Obama assumed the presidency for the second time, he has doubled-down on his mission to “radically change” America into something that it was never meant to be. We all hear our fellow Americans venting their anger to us about the purposeful ineptness of President Pantywaist. But, will this motivate the average American to go to the polls tomorrow and vent their frustration?

2. How big will tomorrow’s turnout be?

Will American Conservatives stay home, as they did when the Republicans ran the severely Moderate Mitt Romney as their Presidential Nominee, or are they sufficiently motivated by Obama’s actions to vote straight Republican…even for snakes like Mississippi’s Thad Cochran, who won his State Party’s Nomination as Senatorial Candidate by enlisting Black Democrats to vote for him in the state’s Republican Primary?

3. Will Voter Fraud be better controlled than it was in the 2012 President Election?

Will Democrats vote early, vote often, and “vote post-mortem”?

If all the stars align and Americans exercise some common sense, tomorrow’s Midterm Elections could turn out to be a Political Tsunami of epic proportions

As you contemplate casting your vote tomorrow, think about this:

Our Founding Fathers designed our government for a very specific purpose: to give Americans a voice in the direction in which direction their country should go.

Tomorrow’s election will be a referendum on the epic failure that is the Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama.

The greatest United States President in my lifetime, Ronald Wilson Reagan, said,

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

In order to preserve our nation for future generations, it is time to restore the System of Checks and Balances which our Founders, through deliberation and with foresight, so ingeniously put in place over 200 years ago.

Our freedom requires it.

Until He Comes,

KJ

The War Against Christianity: Liberals Step Up Efforts to Control What is Said From the Pulpit

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics2 Comments

American Christianity 2In the last few years, during the Obama Administration, there has been a concerted effort by American Liberals to enforce the fallacy known as “The Separation of Church and State”.

Those behind this fascist initiative are so adamant about it, that they are trying to limit what American Christian Leaders can say from the pulpit, a clear violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

If  the “Smartest People in the Room” thought that Men of God would acquiesce to their edicts, they gravely overestimated their own authority, as The Blaze.com reports…

After a church-state watchdog sent out 84,000 letters urging faith leaders and churches, alike, to be mindful of IRS restrictions that govern political activity, the organization claims it received dozens of fiery responses from religious leaders who were less than content with the group’s warning.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State announced earlier this month that it had recently sent the letter to houses of worship and sectarian leaders across the nation, warning in the text against endorsing candidates from the pulpit.

“We merely want houses of worship to follow the rules, stay out of partisan politics and keep their tax exemption,” Simon Brown, the assistant director of communications for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said in a blog post. “And when we explain to clergy what the law requires, we do so in a respectful way.”

But Brown said that some of the recipients didn’t appreciate the reminder, as numerous faith leaders opted to send the letters back along with some fiery messages expressing their dissatisfaction; others called or emailed Americans United with similar sentiment.

A representative for the organization told TheBlaze Thursday that 45 angry responses have already come flooding in and that more are expected in the coming days.

Among the surprising mix of messages came a fiery letter addressed to the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United, from a man described as a Catholic priest.

It read, in part, “As for your solicitude regarding our legal well-being, I ask that you shove it up your fat white a–.”

Another unnamed religious leader wrote the words “drop dead” on the document before sending it back.

Others wrote messages telling Americans United that they have no plans to comply with the organization’s reminder to follow tax law.

One faith leader took to his red marker to write, “Come and get me; I DARE YOU!”

There was also another faith leader who simply tore the letter up into tiny pieces and sent it back to the organization with no accompanying message.

It’s clear from the responses that some faith leaders clearly oppose the IRS regulations that come along with their tax-exempt status, though contention surrounding these legal parameters is nothing new.

At the center of the debate over church politicking is the Johnson Amendment, a controversial IRS code added in 1954 that precludes nonprofit organizations — churches included — from engaging in campaign activity.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, an atheist activist group and Americans United, among others, have long clashed with conservative groups over the issue of church politicking, with the right-leaning legal firm Alliance Defending Freedom organizing the annual “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” event.

The initiative, which last unfolded October 5, encourages pastors “to reclaim their right to speak freely from the pulpit by preaching an election-related sermon” — an act that flies in the face of the letter that Americans United sent to preachers.

Have you ever wondered where the expression “separation of church and state” came from?

David Barton, writing at wallbuilders.com, presents the following explanation:

In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.

…Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the “establishment of a particular form of Christianity” by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.

Since this was Jefferson’s view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:

Gentlemen, – The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Jefferson’s reference to “natural rights” invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase “natural rights” communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little.

By definition, “natural rights” included “that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain.” That is, “natural rights” incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus, when Jefferson assured the Baptists that by following their “natural rights” they would violate no social duty, he was affirming to them that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or interference.

So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America’s inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America could survive if we ever lost that knowledge. He queried:

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?

Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the “fence” of the Webster letter and the “wall” of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.

Liberals wish to silence the voices and sublimate the rights of Christian Americans, who actually constitute  76% of America’s population, per Gallup.

And, as the systematic overturning of the will of the American People concerning Homosexual Marriage through government-backed Judicial Activism has shown us, they will eliminate the Christian Viewpoint from America’s Political Arena, by any means necessary.

That is why it is so important for Americans to vote this coming Tuesday.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. – Edmund Burke

Now, as I sit back and wait for the inevitable wailing and gnashing of teeth, allow me to leave you with this thought:

Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian.

– Richmond v. Moore, (Illinois Supreme Court, 1883)

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Texas AG Tells OSCE, “Not in OUR Polling Places, You Don’t!”

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

One of our State Attorney Generals has told the OSCE from the United Nations that they’re going to have to wait outside, while Americans vote.

Thehill.com has the story:

Texas authorities have threatened to arrest international election observers, prompting a furious response from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).

“The threat of criminal sanctions against [international] observers is unacceptable,” Janez Lenarčič, the Director of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), said in a statement. “The United States, like all countries in the OSCE, has an obligation to invite ODIHR observers to observe its elections.”

Lawmakers from the group of 56 European and Central Asian nations have been observing U.S. elections since 2002, without incident. Their presence has become a flashpoint this year, however, as Republicans accuse Democrats of voter fraud while Democrats counter that GOP-inspired voter ID laws aim to disenfranchise minority voters.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott further fueled the controversy on Tuesday when he sent a letter to the OSCE warning the organization that its representatives “are not authorized by Texas law to enter a polling place” and that it “may be a criminal offense for OSCE’s representatives to maintain a presence within 100 feet of a polling place’s entrance.”

The letter goes on to accuse the group of having met with liberal organizations that oppose Voter ID laws. The OSCE put out an interim report last week saying that “recent state-level legislative initiatives to limit early voting and introduce stricter voter identification have become highly polarized.”

“The OSCE may be entitled to its opinions about Voter ID laws, but your opinion is legally irrelevant in the United States, where the Supreme Court has already determined that Voter ID laws are constitutional,” Abbott wrote. “If OSCE members want to learn more about our election processes so they can improve their own democratic systems, we welcome the opportunity to discuss the measures Texas has implemented to protect the integrity of elections. However, groups and individuals from outside the United States are not allowed to influence or interfere with the election process in Texas.”

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) also weighed in, tweeting “No UN monitors/inspectors will be part of any TX election process; I commend @Txsecofstate for swift action to clarify issue.”

In letters to Abbott and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose State Department invited the 44 election observers, Lenarčič reiterated that the group is only there to observe the elections.

“Our observers are required to remain strictly impartial and not to intervene in the voting process in any way,” Lenarčič said in a statement. “They are in the United States to observe these elections, not to interfere in them.”

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland sought to tone down the controversy during her briefing Thursday. The department is eager to avoid giving the impression that the United States is unwilling to submit to the same scrutiny it demands of others when it comes to human and civil rights.

“Since the initial issue with Texas we’ve received a letter, both for Secretary Clinton and one for Texas authorities, from the OSCE assuring us and Texas authorities that the OSCE observers are committed to following all U.S. laws and regulations as they do in any country where they observe elections and they will do so as well in Texas,” Nuland said. “To my knowledge [Texas] is the only state that came forward and said ‘please reassure us that you’re going to follow our state electoral law.’ And they have now been reassured.

As I wrote in my post last Sunday, “UN Representatives to Monitor OUR Presidential Election”:

Salam al-Marayati, founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), was picked to represent the United States government at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s (OSCE) annual 10-day human rights conference, the Human Dimension Implementation Meetings (HDIM).

The fact that our soon-to-be former president (Please, God) selected a Jihadist to represent OUR country should give you a clue as to the nature of this UN Committee.

I’m sure you’re asking by now, “How did this mess start in the first place?”

Start the Wayback Machine, Sherman. We’re traveling to 2004…

The foreign observers set to monitor the U.S. presidential election for the first time ever this November said the election of a Florida Democrat as president of the group’s parliamentary assembly would not taint the group’s objectivity.

On July 9, U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings – criticized by conservatives for his ethics and partisanship – was elected president of the OSCE’s parliamentary assembly, a position that will allow him to appoint and assign OSCE’s election monitors.

Although the OSCE members present at the press conference insisted that Hastings would not be involved in observing the election on November 2, at least one member did concede that Hastings has influenced the process by playing a role in the selection of OSCE Vice President Barbara Haering, a Swiss parliamentarian who will lead the observer operations on Election Day.

Olszewski told CNSNews.com that the appointment of Haering means that Hastings will stay separate from the actual observation process.

But Peyton Knight, executive director of the conservative American Policy Center (APC) dismissed what he said were the OSCE’s and Hastings’ attempts to distance themselves from each other.

“That is quite a different tune that [Hastings] was playing two months ago,” Knight told CNSNews.com.

“As the parliamentary president, Hastings often declared that he would get to pick the observers that would be observing this election,” Knight said.

In August, the APC objected to Hastings’ role with the OSCE, partly because of his questionable ethics. Hastings was impeached in a bribery and perjury scandal when he was a federal judge.

Hastings became Florida’s first African-American U.S. District Court judge in 1979, nominated by then President Jimmy Carter. But nine years later, the U.S. House impeached Hastings for taking bribes from the federal bench and for perjury. The U.S. Senate subsequently convicted Hastings on the charges and removed him from office.

Hastings in 1992 ran for the Florida’s predominantly black 23rd district in the U.S. House of Representatives, where he still serves.

According to APC, which refers to Hastings as a “disgraced federal judge,” Hastings’ comments about the Bush administration, including a comment that the president’s re-election team would “try to steal this election,” jeopardize his impartiality.

Hastings also is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, a group still smarting over the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to stop Florida’s presidential ballot recount in 2000. The ruling effectively gave the election to George W. Bush.

…Knight said the APC’s objections to OSCE go beyond Hastings’ affiliation with the group.

“The OSCE is totally biased,” Knight said. He noted that OSCE observers are in the U.S. “at the behest of the most leftist Congress member on Capitol Hill, and that is who they are going to get their marching orders from.” Knight was referring to members of the Congressional Black Caucus and others.

“The OSCE monitoring of our elections is an insult to America and that is exactly what the few Democrats and internationalists in Congress want it to be – an insult. That was the goal,” Knight said.

“The other goal was to give false credence to claims that Republicans stole the election in 2000,” he added.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott was right in barring these “impartial observers” from entering OUR polling places.

The manner in which we exercise our right to vote, and, whom we vote for, is none of their business.

However, I do have a newsflash for the UN:

I do not think they are going to like the outcome of OUR  2012 Presidential Election.

Sho’ ’nuff hate it for ’em.