Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Archive for October, 2012

Monstrous Storm to Monstrous Election Confrontation?


Just when you think you have it right, life steps in and reminds you how shortsighted you can be. The first Lady was right about voting early because toilets may overflow. Mother Nature just caused millions of toilets to back up and many east coast voters may not be able to use polling places and equipment to vote. What are the odds?

I am genuinely apprehensive about next week’s election and the consequences of wide spread power outages up and down the eastern seaboard. For the first time in my life many Americans may not be able to cast a ballot on Election Day. Electronic voting systems may not be able to function as designed and many States simply don’t have the emergency paper ballots or equipment to scan and tabulate those ballots available for next week’s election.

If you thought the 2000 Bush/Gore Florida election was a debacle, wait until this one works itself out. The largest city in the United States is flooded and power may not be restored in suburban New York Areas for over a week. If this election is close or if President Obama is defeated, I suspect that our entire national voting protocols will be dissected and scrutinized like no other time in our nation’s history.

At least half a dozen states have been seriously affected by this storm and while voters work through the devastation Sandy has wrought, my concerns for Election Day continue to grow. I know that many in our country may be reveling in thought that the Democrat dominated East Coast may not be able to vote but what of the integrity of our electoral process? Does Obama really need an excuse to challenge the outcome of this election?

At a time when serious governing decisions need to be made, this extreme weather event will test the foundation of our Democracy. The United States cannot afford to wage an agenda-driven, and what might be an extended, legal battle to determine the outcome of our Presidential Election. Our Federal government has been sitting on their hands and waiting for the outcome of this election before moving on make-or-break legislation our nation needed four years ago. Real catastrophe is on the horizon and the world is watching this election closely.

It is my belief that we are headed for a monstrous confrontation over this election. Add Sandy and it just gets worse. For months small battles have been waged about voter suppression and alleged Civil Rights violations in swing states across America. Trust me when I say there will be no concession speech until all votes are counted and certified in this election.

It will be interesting to see how the media behaves while this election plays out. Now more than ever they have the power to set America on fire with already inflamed racial tensions making many nervous. Not only will the character of our elections be tested, but so will the boundaries of the First Amendment. Politically predisposed news anchors and journalists would do well to show some restraint when choosing to re-light the fuse of racial animosity that has been burning during the campaign.

The damage Sandy wreaked on the East Coast is repairable, but the carnage that could be unleashed if Americans believe an election was stolen is incalculable. In the end, like it or not, we are a nation of differing opinions and explosive passions. If our leaders fail to protect the rule of law in our upcoming election it could spell the beginning of the end for our Republic.

Obama’s Benghazi Bungle? Yea – Americans are Bothered …


 

Home / 2012 Election /

By / 30 October 2012 / 7 Comments

It appears the Benghazi, Libya cover-up and the mismanagement of Embassy protection and ambassador protection may be the nail in the Obama campaign coffin.  As voters learn more about this fiasco, they are outraged.

Voters are bothered by the fact that the Consulate in Benghazi did not have adequate protection. Voters are bothered that the Ambassador and the consulate personnel did not have a properly functioning security force and safe room. Voters are bothered that the president and his administration did not respond appropriately to the attack and calls for help. Voters are bothered that Obama went to bed on the evening of the attack and got up the next day and conducted business as usual – a short inappropriate speech from the Rose Garden – two days of campaigning in Las Vegas and Colorado – a   fund-raiser in NY City sponsored by Jay-Z and Beyonce – and an appearance on the David Letterman show.  Voters are bothered that the President did not stay at his desk or in the situation room at the White House providing appropriate analysis, leadership and encouragement.

Voters are bothered by the Obama  administration’s attempt to cover-up the Benghazi atrocity and its mismanaged preparation and response. Voters are especially bothered by the arrogance of President Obama during the second debate – looking Governor Romney and the TV cameras in the eye and stating that he was offended by the accusations that he and anyone in his administration were misleading the American people about the cause of the Benghazi attack.

Obama has been accused throughout his administration of Leading from Behind – which is a diplomatic way of saying: he is following. Of course, Obama’s had little choice but to follow – having come into office completely unprepared – with no executive, management or leadership experience. He was and still is totally dependent on appointees – mostly from academia – who are similarly lacking in proven executive, management and leadership experience. Never has Obama’s inadequacies and deceptiveness been more thoroughly exposed than during the past forty days.

Although the electorate is primarily concerned with jobs, wages, their loss of personal wealth, and overall economic growth – they have not lost sight of the importance of foreign-policy and the military incompetence of our Commander in Chief, the President of the United States.  And they are made very unhappy by the Benghazi demonstration of Obama’s incompetence – by the facts exposed by the Benghazi cover-up – and most of all, by the President’s inappropriate response to this attack while it was happening – and by his subsequent participation in its cover-up.

Needless to say, the time has come to hire a proven Chief Executive and Commander in Chief.  Romney/Ryan are the best of the best – a perfect team – a proven CEO, a Congressional leader, a financial expert, and a turnaround specialist – precisely what America needs today.

Image: The Keystone Cops; Publicity still: 1914, In the Clutches of the Gang; courtesy of author: Mack Sennett Studios; permission: PD-US.

Could Hurricane Sandy Affect the 2012 Election?


Marion Smith

October 30, 2012 at 11:36 am

The unusual question was asked to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney: “Would the President have the power to adjust Election Day?” Within hours, online forums and TV pundits began citing precedent for postponing elections, most notably the New York City mayoral election just after 9/11—a municipal election that, legally, has nothing to do with federal election timetables. Looking at U.S. history, it is clear that there is no precedent for postponing a national presidential election, even in the midst of foreign or domestic wars. Moreover, the President lacks the constitutional authority to alter or postpone a national election; the election timetable is specified by statute of Congress as authorized by the Constitution.

No Precedent in 225 Years

The 1812 presidential election took place as the United States was fighting its fourth foreign war. President James Madison sought re-election several months after declaring war on Great Britain and won by the narrowest margin in U.S. history to date. The election was inconvenient to the prosecution of the war and its outcome uncertain due to a bitterly partisan and nearly even national split, but the election was carried out on schedule. Postponing the national election was not seriously contemplated.

In an even more disruptive state of war in 1864, President Abraham Lincoln acknowledged that the scheduled elections “added not a little to the strain” of the ongoing struggle, but postponement was not an option. “We cannot have free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forego or postpone a national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us.” Lincoln further noted that keeping to schedule “demonstrated that a people’s government can sustain a national election, in the midst of a great civil war. Until now it has not been known to the world that this was a possibility.”

As disruptive as hurricanes are, wars are much more so. Considering that the United States has maintained a regular and uninterrupted national election schedule for more than two centuries, including in times of devastating war, Hurricane Sandy would seem an odd and unlikely reason to postpone the presidential election. Not unlike 1864, it is an opportunity to prove to the world that the American people’s government can sustain a national election even in the aftermath of a terrible hurricane. As such, 2012 is yet another milestone of continuity for America’s experiment in constitutional self-government.

Who Can Modify Scheduled National Elections?

Beyond the absence of precedent, it is worth asking who has the legal authority to alter a nationally scheduled election. Carney’s answer: “I don’t know the answer to that question.”

Yet, clearly, the President does not have such authority. If the November 6 election were to be postponed in all or parts of America, it must be the result of congressional legislation. Congress would have to amend the statute setting the timetable of presidential elections since 1854 (3 U.S.C. § 1) as the “Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President” or allow for a vis maior postponement of the elections in the states affected by the hurricane.

Carney should revisit his statement and thereby indicate that the White House understands its constitutional limits and the historical record on this issue. To leave this question open simply gives Americans the worry of wondering whether or not the President understands the limits of his constitutional authority on the matter of national elections.

Trick or Treat


 

THANKS A LOT SANDY


The aftermath of Sandy defies description.

  • Three feet of Snow in West Virginia;
  • Several inches of sand covering everything several miles inland in New Jersey;
  • The front of a building in New York City completely blown off;
  • A wind-blown fire wiping out 80 homes;
  • Millions of people without power, safe drinking water and uncertain sewers;
  • Transportation interrupted, especially flights.

I have prayed, and I hope you have been too, for the victims of this historic storm. Such devastation boggles the mind and the cost of recovery will be staggering, especially because we’re broke as a nation.

However, Americans have always rallied behind our fellow citizens who are suffering and in need. We will respond again. Already all the forces of good and caring are at work meeting needs and bring comfort. No, I am not including the government.

I have no doubt that needs will be met, rebuilding will happen and “normal” will one day be reestablished. However, I am extremely concerned about a disaster no one is talking about, and “normal” may never be realized again has a result of that disaster. I am referring to the Presidential Election coming up next Tuesday. The storm has opened wider that opportunity for Leftist voting shenanigans.

With all the arguments over Voter Registration, Voter I.D. and Voter Fraud, this natural disaster has provided and added opportunity to make the corrupt more powerful. Consider the national debate;

  • The Left opposes Voter I.D. because they curry the favor of people who are here illegally. I.D.s exposes the fraud.
  • In Florida, over 50,000 people that are on the voting registration rolls are deceased. How many do you think will rise from the dead and vote?
  • The introduction of early voting has given the Left more time to encourage fraud by multiple votes from some people.
  • The Left has already manipulated the Military Vote into nonexistence because they know the Military votes predominately Republican.
  • California has already announced they will not be counting the mailed in ballots, as they did in 2008, because they claim it won’t make a difference in the outcome.
  • The U.N. has been invited again to “observe” our voting because the U.N. has been told that Republicans repress the vote in certain areas prohibiting poor and elderly people from voting.
  • With the power off, some areas will have to go to paper ballots opening the doors for screams of voting irregularity should the Left loose. Yes, it has been reported that the lawsuits have already been drawn up and ready for filing should Mitt Romney win. You’ve also heard how the Left has already arranged riots in strategic areas should Mitt Romney win. That will open the door for Marshall Law to be established, and the election deemed null and void.
  • Like in California, the Registrar of Voters has admitted that many citizens are registered in multiple cities and can’t do anything about that person from voting in each location.
  • There is no way to determine the number of illegal votes in the States that have not passed Voter I.D. laws.
  • Like I said, opened doors more even more voting shenanigans, especially should the election be extended because of Sandy’s destruction.

For conservatives in California elections are becoming a farce. For over 50 years the Left files lawsuits if measures don’t go their way. The courts are so corrupt and Left, that most of the time the Left wins. More and more I hear people say, “Why vote when the Democrats go to court and get the election overturned.” And here the Left is the one always screaming about voter repression. California leads the nation in voter repression because the Left always wins in court when we do not vote their way.

For my house and me, we will vote. We refuse to give up. The drums of revolutionary war are getting louder every day. Will we see a revolution in our day? I’m not sure anymore. I am not armed, and that worries me.

Hopefully God is hearing our prayers asking Him to forgive our sins and heal our land. However, our nation has reached levels of inequity that dwarfs Biblical Israel. They were rightly judged for their turn from God. America deserves the same. Is there a remnant of believers big enough for God to withhold His hand? I don’t know. I am praying He heals instead of punishes. What are you praying for?

Why the Left hates voter I.D. laws


Why the Left hates voter I.D. laws

Barack Obama cast his vote for the presidency on Thursday, becoming the first president to exercise his early voting right. This wouldn’t really be newsworthy if it weren’t for this little tidbit of information: in order to cast his vote, president Obama had to provide his photo identification to a voting official.

We live in a world that requires photo I.D. to do practically everything; buying movie tickets, signing up for college classes, getting a job, buying a car, buying a house, and a million other things in between. But the one thing; the one act that is quite possibly the most important civil act one can perform doesn’t necessarily require photo identification. I’m talking about voting. There are voter I.D. laws in thirty states, but the other twenty do not require one to have state issued photo identification in order to vote.

Voter identification seems like a no brainer, right? It is estimated that the United States is home to about 12 million illegal residents. In addition to that, there are certain people that have given up their voting eligibility because of criminal records. These people, because they have committed crimes or they are not legally citizens of the United States, should not be allowed to vote. Again, seems like a simple plot to follow. However, there is a fierce battle being waged all across the country.

For the most part, voter I.D. laws are designed to prevent voter fraud by requiring those at the polls to show a valid, state issued photo I.D.–or other form of identification–in order to cast their vote. That’s where the Left comes in. The Left claims that voter fraud is not an issue; that it happens so infrequently that voter I.D. laws are unnecessary. They also claim that photo I.D. laws suppress voter turnout, specifically among Black and Latino voters, thereby disenfranchising those minority groups.

The concern by Conservatives is that the Left is encouraging voter fraud by railing against these I.D. laws. Here’s why:

1. The fact of the matter is that illegal aliens are far more likely to vote for a Democrat than a Republican.

2. This is because a large majority of “undocumented residents,”–as they are called by the politically correct press–are receiving government handouts.

3. So, they know that by voting for a Democrat, those handouts will continue (as evidenced by the explosion of food stamp usage under Obama).

4. In addition to that, illegal residents know that Democrats are much more lax on illegal immigration law, and generally endorse amnesty in their platform.

Here are some tidbits:

According to nationalcenter.org, voter fraud is prevalent. In Bucks County, in 2010, it was reported that 500 ballots were being investigated as potentially fraudulent.

In Florida, it has been discovered that over 52,000 deceased people are still registered to vote.

Again, according to nationalcenter.org:

“In 2002, dozens of Chicago’s senior citizens applied for absentee ballots, only to discover that the man who was helping them to apply had already filled in the ballots. As the Chicago Sun-Times reported, when the seniors asked him what he was doing, he answered: “Don’t worry, you’re voting Democratic.”

There are numerous other examples in regards to voter fraud, but I won’t list them all, because I’m not writing a book. The Left claims that voter fraud is virtually non existent, because they NEED “ghost” voters, and felons, and illegal aliens to vote for them. In a tight election, it is often the only way for them to win. The Democrats are pros when it comes to cheating.

Recently, voter I.D. laws have been struck down in Pennsylvania and several other states, because they have been labeled as suppressive to minority voters, and they have been compared to the poll taxes of yesteryear. This is of course a false, trumped up argument.

In 2008, the Supreme Court said this after upholding a voter I.D. law in Indiana: “Flagrant examples of such fraud … have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists,” the court said, “[and] not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.”

In addition to this, according to Hans A. Von Spakovsky, of usnews.com,

“An ongoing review of voter registration rolls in Florida has already found almost 100 confirmed non-citizens registered to vote, half of whom voted in at least one previous election; this in a state that decided the 2000 presidential election by slightly more than 500 votes…And the state has thousands more possibly unlawful registrations to investigate.”

So, why does the Left keep harping about “virtually non-existent” voter fraud, when it is clear that voter fraud is quite common? Because in a close election, the Democrats need the votes of those who are dependent on government and therefore far more likely to vote for them. This is why the Left is fighting to get photo I.D. laws struck down in several states. They have even succeeded in Pennsylvania. Requiring identification will lose them elections.

It seems only natural that if you need an I.D. to buy a car or see a movie, you would need one to vote. Photo I.D. is easy to obtain. According to the Heritage Foundation, “U.S. Department of Transportation records showing that there were 205.8 million valid drivers licenses in 2009, meaning there are 19 million more individuals with photo ID than there are registered voters, as evidence that photo ID is not hard to obtain.”

So, in the end, it is quite obvious to me that the reason the Democrats are so avidly against voter identification laws is because they need false votes to win elections. They know that as time goes by, they will not be able to win on ideas and policy, but instead with voters who are dependent on government handouts. They need fraudulent votes.

We need voter identification laws.

Petraeus on Benghazi: It Wasn’t Me


Petraeus on Benghazi: It Wasn’t Me

Central Intelligence Agency director David Petraeus has emphatically denied that he or anyone else at the CIA refused assistance to the former Navy SEALs who requested it three times as terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on the night of Sep. 11. The Weekly Standard and ABC News report that Petraeus’s denial effectively implicates President Barack Obama, since a refusal to assist “would have been a presidential decision.”

Earlier today, Denver local reporter Kyle Clarke of KUSA-TV did what the national media largely refuses to do, asking Obama directly whether the Americans in Benghazi were denied requests for aid. Obama dodged the question, but implied that he had known about the attacks as they were “happening.”

Emails released earlier this week indicated that the White House had been informed almost immediately that a terror group had taken responsibility for the attack in Benghazi, and Fox News reported this morning that the two former Navy SEALs, Ty Woods and Glen Doherty, had been refused in requests for assistance they had made from the CIA annex.

Jake Tapper quoted Petraeus this afternoon denying that the CIA was responsible for the refusal: “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.”

As William Kristol of the Weekly Standard notes, that leaves only President Obama himself to blame:

So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.

It would have been a presidential decision. There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?

Earlier today, Charles Woods, father of Ty Woods, called the White House’s explanations for events in Benghazi a “pack of lies” and implied that those in the administration who could have helped, but refused, were guilty of “murder.” He added:

My son violated his orders in order to protect the lives of at least 30 people. He risked his life to be a hero. I wish that the leadership in the White House had the same moral courage that my son displayed with his life.

Also today, the State Department shut down questions from reporters about Libya at a press briefing in Washington. The administration, as a whole, seems to have decided to say nothing further about Benghazi until after election–except for Petraeus, who was directly implicated by charges that the CIA failed to help, and who was thereby compelled to provide a response that points, inexorably, to the man in the Oval Office.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: