Tag Archives: vote

Vote in the RNC 2016 Presidential Straw Poll

vote-smart-button
The Republican National Committee has released a 2016 presidential straw poll asking users to choose the three names they would most like to see as the Republican nominee. They’ve presented the names of 32 potential nominees with a write-in at the end of the survey.

The names listed mostly won’t come as a surprise. Listed are people such as Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Allen West and of course the main stream media and establishment darling Chris Christi of New Jersey. A couple of the names on their list did make me take a second glance, like Condoleezza Rice and former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton….wait – what?

As of today, according to  Real Clear Politics, several polls show Governor Christi is leading by a +4.0 spread.  So here’s your chance folks, to let the establishment know we’re fed up with big government and it’s time to restore the proper balance of power.  America isn’t broken; it is Washington that is broken.

Leave a comment below and let me know who  you would like to see as the Republican nominee in the 2016 presidential election?

RNC 2016 Presidential Straw Poll

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Conservative, Politics

Fighting back on voting rights – Because voter ID’s are racist?

E.J. Dionne of The Washington Post and MSNBC commentator.

E.J. Dionne of The Washington Post and MSNBC commentator.

This morning I came across an article written by E.J. Dionne, a long time op-ed contributor for The Washington Post and a NPR, PBS and MSNBC commentator, about fighting back on voting rights. I knew it was going to be skewed to the left, I just didn’t realize how much so.

By E.J. Dionne Jr., Guest Columnist
WASHINGTON —
Attorney General Eric Holder has opened what will be an epic battle over whether our country will remain committed to equal rights at the ballot box. In a display of egregious judicial activism in late June, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act. Holder made clear last week he intends to fight back.

The struggle will begin in Texas, but it won’t end there. “We cannot allow the slow unraveling of the progress that so many, throughout history, have sacrificed so much to achieve,” Holder told the National Urban League’s annual conference.
He wasn’t exaggerating the stakes. From the moment the Supreme Court threw out Section 4 of the act, which subjected the voting laws in states and jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to Justice Department scrutiny, conservative legislators in those places gleefully signaled their intention to pass laws to make it harder to vote. In addition, Texas re-imposed a redistricting map that a federal court had already ruled was discriminatory.

These hasty moves were unseemly but entirely predictable, proving that Chief Justice John Robert’s opinion in the case will become a Magna Carta for voter suppression. Without having to worry about “preclearance” from the Justice Department, legislators can go about their business of making it more difficult for voters who would throw them out of office to reach the polls — and of drawing racially gerrymandered districts that prolong their tenure. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg understood a logic here that escaped Roberts. “A governing political coalition,” she wrote in her dissent, “has an incentive to prevent changes in the existing balance of voting power.”
This in turn means that when a political party fares badly with minority voters, it will try to turn them away from the polling booths. That’s what segregationist Southern Democrats did in the past. Many Republican-controlled legislatures are doing it now.

Holder announced he was using Section 3, a different part of the Voting Rights Act that was left standing, to ask a federal court to re-subject Texas to preclearance. It is a less efficient way to achieve what the pre-gutted act allowed automatically, but it is the best that can be done for now. It would be better still if Congress reinstated a revised version of Section 4. In the meantime, the hope is to limit the damage of the high court’s folly — and perhaps also give other states pause before they rush into new discriminatory schemes.
“This is the department’s first action to protect voting rights following the [Supreme Court] decision, but it will not be our last,” Holder declared. His department is likely to move this week against the Texas voter-identification law, and to go to court eventually against other states that pass comparable statutes.

To get a sense of how bad these laws are, consider the bill Republicans rushed through both houses of North Carolina’s Legislature that should be called the Omnibus Voter Suppression Act of 2013. It reads like a parody written for Stephen Colbert’s show with its cornucopia of provisions that would make it as hard as possible for African-Americans, Latinos and young people to vote.

As the Charlotte Observer reported, it shortens the early-voting period, eliminates the opportunity to register and vote on the same day during that time, and ends pre-registration for teenagers 16 to 17. The bill also prevents counties from extending voting hours when lines are long — which they will be with the cutback on early voting days. It not only requires photo identification, but also narrows the list of what’s acceptable, eliminating college IDs, for example.

Oh, yes, and remember the old civic tradition of using all avenues to encourage people to register to vote, a favorite cause of that famously revolutionary group, the League of Women Voters? This bill would ban paid voter registration drives.

… Read More
E.J. Dionne’s email address is ejdionne@washpost.com

Expecting more from a man who penned the book, “They Only Look Dead: Why Progressives Will Dominate the Next Political Era” , was kind of naive, but thinking that being a print journalist he would have been more scrupulous – even just a bit impartial. Lesson learned.

Of course I have an opinion on his op-ed piece, but I wanted to make sure he was aware of it. I emailed him this morning –

Mr.Dionne,
I noticed in your article, Fighting Back On Voting Rights, a few omissions. I’m sure this was unintended.
For example, you wrote, “This in turn means that when a political party fares badly with minority voters, it will try to turn them away from the polling booths.” You mean like the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation in Philly that was later dismissed by Holder? I’m sure you mean just like that.

New Black Panthers intimidating voters at the polls in Philadelphia

New Black Panthers intimidating voters at the polls in Philadelphia

Then there was that little rant on banning paid voter drives. You must have been distracted during the last election. Unless you were living under a rock, you would know that paid voter drives breed voter registration fraud. If you need examples, I’d be more than happy to supply them. Perhaps it was just an oversight on your part. It’s inconceivable that some people think voter fraud is a myth, they must be part of the low information voters. Ask me how I could have voted twice when I was handed the ballot of another voter because of the same last name and similar address. I suppose if someone had asked to see my ID the situation could have been avoided. Not everyone is as honest as I am.

That got me thinking about photo identification – either a driver’s license or a state ID for non-drivers. I noticed some pertinent data was missing from your article. There are so many instances besides voting where showing/having an ID is necessary.
For instance, one would need an ID to apply for/receive Medicare and Medicaid, purchase cigarettes and alcohol, buy Sudafed, rent a car, get a hotel room, check out a library book, any bank transactions, register yourself or a child in school, board an airplane, get certain medications at the pharmacy, apply for store credit, set up a utilities account (water, lights, etc), buy a car, register a car, vote in a union, donate blood, use a credit card, Social Security services, buy train tickets, volunteer at non-profit organizations, buy a house, rent an apartment, and even at print shops.

I don’t think you were seriously suggesting that asking for an ID to vote is somehow racist or “right wing”, that would be ludicrous. I’m sure the groups you mentioned: blacks, latinos and young people, (I’ll even throw one in of my own – senior citizens) have used at least one or more of these services. To think otherwise would be absurd…. or intellectually dishonest. Wouldn’t you say?

I do hope Mr. Dionne gets sarcasm –

What are your thoughts…opinions on voter’s rights and voter ID?

Leave a comment

Filed under Civil Rights, Conservative, Current Events, Elections, Liberal, Politics

STATES CAN’T REQUIRE PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP TO VOTE USING FEDERAL FORM

ImageYesterday, the Supreme Court handed down one of its first major decisions of this term, striking down Arizona’s measure requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration. Media reports are already off base in interpreting this decision, says Heritage legal expert Hans von Spakovsky. Here are three things to know about the decision:

1. This is not a voter ID decision.
This decision has to do with voter registration, not the act of voting. Von Spakovsky explains- “In 2004, Arizona voters overwhelmingly approved a referendum that had two major components: voter ID for in-person voting and a requirement that anyone registering to vote provide proof of citizenship. The voter ID provision was not before the Supreme Court and is alive and well in Arizona.” 
Although it did not strike down the provision that requires a photo ID for in-person voting, von Spakovsky said “the Supreme Court came down on the wrong side of election integrity” with this ruling.

2. Federal law already mandates that a person must be a U.S. citizen to vote.
The Court’s ruling does not mean that requiring proof of citizenship is bad or wrong. In fact, people are supposed to vote only if they are citizens.
The Court ruled the way it did because there is already a federal law requiring people to affirm that they are U.S. citizens when they register to vote.Which means all they have to do is state that they are a US Citizen, there’s not even a “citizen” check-off box on ballot applications Most people register using the federal mail-in form under the “Motor Voter” law.

3. States do determine the qualifications of their voters.
If Arizona has information about a voter that shows he or she is not eligible to vote, then the state still decides who is a legitimate voter.

The majority of the justices said that federal requirement “preempts” Arizona’s requirement, which simply means the federal law comes first.

But Arizona residents can register to vote using the federal form or a state form. Von Spakovsky notes that “Arizona can continue to require proof of citizenship for anyone who registers using the state form.” If they use the Federal form – all bets are off.

Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the two dissenting votes, explained:

I think that both the plain text and the history of the Voter Qualifications Clause and the Seventeenth Amendment authorize States to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, which necessarily includes the related power to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied. To avoid substantial constitutional problems created by interpreting [this section of NVRA] to permit Congress to effectively countermand this authority, I would construe the law as only requiring Arizona to accept and use the form as part of its voter registration process, leaving the State free to request whatever additional information it determines is necessary to ensure that voters meet the qualifications it has the constitutional authority to establish. Under this interpretation, Arizona did “accept and use” the Federal Form. Accordingly, there is no conflict between [Arizona law] and [federal law] and, thus, no pre-emption…

Instead of adopting [the challengers’] definition of “accept and use” and offering Arizona the dubious recourse of bringing an APA challenge within the NVRA framework, I would adopt an interpretation of [NVRA] that avoids the constitutional problems with [the challengers’] interpretation. The States, not the Federal Government, have the exclusive right to define the “Qualifications requisite for Electors,” [“electors” are voters,] which includes the corresponding power to verify that these qualifications have been met. I would, therefore, hold that Arizona may “reject any application for registration that is not accompanied by satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship,” as defined by Arizona law.

While I understand the decision by SCOTUS, and on the surface it makse sense, I don’t agree with it. It’s back to status quo.

Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s decision or do the state laws need more teeth? 

Leave a comment

Filed under Current Events, Government, Immigration, Politics, SCOTUS

An Open Letter To Liberal Politicians

This goes for R.I.N.O.s as well… November is here.
I’ve been waiting, and I remember.

1 Comment

Filed under Current Events, Government

Don’t Vote!

I hate these “Get Out and Vote”, “Rock the Vote”, “Vote or Die” groups aimed at young uneducated voters that have no idea what a candidates’ voting record is or the consequences of their vote (except from what they learn from MTV and Comedy Central) Many of them don’t even have a clear grasp of history.

Did you know that most 18-35 year olds can correctly identify a picture of Lindsay Lohan, but not Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin?

These are the exact people who the ‘ get out and vote’ groups want at the polls because it only helps their cause.

DON’T VOTE UNLESS YOU KNOW WHO/WHAT YOU’RE VOTING FOR!

Voting is your right, but with that right comes responsibility.

Should you vote in the next election? Everyone should take this brief quiz, especially if you fall into that 18-35 year old group.
SHOULD I VOTE? – If you fail this quiz, study up or do your country a favor and stay home.

Seriously... don't!

Do you know where your candidates really stand on the issues that are important to you? Do you know how they voted in the past or even recently? Below are several sites, listed from the most simplest to the more complex. Please take a few minutes and get to know your candidates. Their votes speak louder than their words.

VOTE EASY – brought to you by Project Vote Smart. Find out which candidates are most like you.

PROJECT VOTE SMART – The voter’s self-defense system.

The US Congress Votes Database –  A project from the Washington Post

GovTrack – A civic project to track Congress. (Members of Congress, Bills and Resolutions, Voting Records and Congressional Committees)

3 Comments

Filed under Current Events, Government