If the thugs, who stood at the polling place in Pennsylvania on Election Day intimidating the senior citozens and other voters who came out to vote in one of the most important Presidential races in recent year, thought that there “problems” were behind them since Eric Holder opted not to pursue the case, tghye were mistaken. The U.S. Civil Rights Commission is now looking into the matter:

The U.S. Civil Rights Commission is not backing off its showdown with the Justice Department about mishandling the voter-intimidation case involving agents of the New Black Panther Party. Nor should it.

Yesterday, the commission sent a letter to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. demanding that Justice “fully cooperate,” according to specific legal authority vested in the commission, with the commission’s inquiry about why Justice dropped the case after it had already been won. The commission wrote that Justice’s replies to earlier commission requests either are “overdue,” have been “largely non-responsive” or have provided “none of the documents we requested.”

     Quoting the Black Panthers: “You want freedom, you’re gonna have to kill some crackers. You’re gonna have to kill some of they [sic] babies.”

For full article: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/01/panther-injustice-continues/

Hat tip to Jack and Jill Politics.

It’s a 10-minute talk/interview. Take notes, and take time to think and plan. Make sure that you, your friends, of age children, relatives, and even released convicts that you know of who can vote at the state level or Federal level, etc., have their voter registration up to date. Real change takes time, beyond what our black president has in mind.

Check out these interesting tidbits from the brilliant Beetle Blogger. It looks like we won’t be stuck with activists judges after all. As liberal as some people and elected officials in California are, at least we have a system where the citizens can participate a form of checks and balances. If someone gets out of line, we have the means to eject them from office, and prevent them from being even more destructive.

Automatic Recall of California Justices?

I learned an interesting thing this morning.  Judicial appointments in California are confirmed by the public at the next general election; justices also come before voters at the end of their 12-year terms.  Who is coming up for the end of their 12 year term this time around??

Three California Supreme Court justices will be up for reelection to 12-year terms on the November 2010 ballot:

1. Ron George – led court to invent homosexual “marriage” last year

2. Ming Chin — voted to uphold Prop. 22 last year

3. Carlos Moreno — voted to invent homosexual “marriages” last year

Carlos Moreno was the lone dissenting vote on upholding Proposition 8.  The amount of stretching and wheedling that had to be done in order to muscle his will into the state constitution automatically discredits him and disbars him in my mind.  There is no way he should ever sit as a judge over this state with that kind of willingness to overlook the basic rights of the people.

Ron George is hardly better.

There are some days when I am so glad to be a Californian.  When I look at these other states so helpless against their legislatures and judiciaries…It’s unfathomable the amount of work they have to put out to reorganize a corrupt system.  The California Constitution gives the people power.

That’s something to be grateful for.

—Beetle Blogger

Get ready to vote folks!!!

Another tidbit that you might find interesting…Carlos Moreno, the 1 dissenter who voted to strike down Prop 8, was also on Obama’s short list for potential appointees to the U.S. Supreme Court. The very same list from which he appointed Sotomayor. Not very shocking coming from Obama huh? Sotomayor is right up there  with all of the others who promote liberal ideologies, and hopes to assert her beliefs and opinions ahead of the rule of law when it comes to interpreting the Constitution.

For more info on Judicial Activism {click here}.

Source: Beetle Blogger

As you all know, most of us PUMAs came into being shortly after the fiasco that was the DNC RBC meeting.  I was there and saw it live. Mawm took part in the protests outside.  In the afternoon he was in the chamber when the committee made its final decision, nullifying the votes of over 18,000,000 Democrats.  They called it unity.  Mawm told them what it really was, “Lipstick on a pig”.

The committee seated both delegations but gave each only half-votes. Clinton netted 24 delegates from the day but her supporters were verging on hysterical throughout the last 40 minutes of the meeting, heckling the panel for its decision. It was one of the ugliest Dem-on-Dem scenes I’ve ever witnessed, including chants of “McCain 08,” “Bastards,” and “Denver.” Not to mention “Lipstick on a Pig,”

Democracy in the Democratic party has been dead since May 31, 2008.   This is just the final nail in the coffin.

The DNC this evening announced a commission to look at the primary calendar for 2012, to be led by South Carolina’s Jim Clyburn and Missouri’s Claire McCaskill. The most prominent Iowan is Attorney General Tom Miller, a very early Obama supporter.
But the dominant figure will likely be Obama’s delegate guru, Jeff Berman, a largely unsung, key player of the primary season who is close to David Plouffe, also on the commission, and to Bill Carrick, another commissioner.

The key goals:

The Democratic Change Commission will address three issues: 1) changing the window of time during which primaries and caucuses may be held 2) reducing the number of superdelegates and 3) improving the caucus system. A copy of the convention resolution establishing the Commission is below. The Commission must issue its report and recommendations to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee no later than January 1, 2010.

The Democrats don’t want their sham of a primary exposed again, so they’ve put their top Obama loyalist slimebags on the case.  Claire “my children tell me who to vote for” McCaskill will be deciding the rules.  Jim Clyburn, who tarnished his own civil rights reputation by sinking in to the mud to hurl accusations of racism at Hillary and Bill Clinton, will also be shepherding future Democratic votes.  If we didn’t already know that our party has been stolen, there’s no doubt of it now.  We can never go back.

And if you look at their agenda, it is clear that they are ensuring that they will be able to manipulate the outcomes of the primaries from here on out.  Particularly telling is the stated goal of reducing the number of SD’s, who we all know could have done the right thing and picked the candidate that a majority of Democratic voters voted for, Hillary Clinton.   Jim and Claire are going to eliminate all remaining safeguards protecting voter rights.

But if you voted for Hillary, don’t worry, she’ll be represented in the primary reform too:

It also includes Clinton backers Randi Weingarten and Minyon Moore.

Ever heard of them? I haven’t.

Democratic Party– R.I.P.

Thanks for keeping my blog warm everyone!!!! Moving is a total fiasco. Thankfully I’m not a pack-rat and I have no problem throwing things away. We’re finally in the new house, but unpacking is another story. The internet got hooked up today and I’m anxious to see what I’ve been missing on the marriage front this past week.

This was the first bit on info I came across. The liberal Washington Post is of course trying to put their slant on the the Prop 8 issue and the pending Supreme Court ruling, likely in favor of Prop 8, but if you look past the slant and bias, you’ll see that although they are trying to give gays hope that they can take over marriage and whatever else they feel like, we as citizens still ultimately have the power. We can continue to affect the outcomes of the ballot measures and express our wants and needs to our representatives. And we can still expect the CA Supreme Court to respect our wishes, and not trample on our rights.

Here are some highlights from the article:

It is ordinarily the better part of wisdom not to predict court decisions on the basis of questions asked by judges at oral argument. But the California Supreme Court left little doubt that it would reject the contention of gay rights advocates that it should ignore the results of the ballot initiative that, in effect, reversed the same court’s opinion recognizing same-sex marriages.

Yet, as difficult as the likely outcome of the case will be for those of us who support gay marriage, the court’s rationale will almost certainly strengthen a fundamental tenet of the progressive movement: the right of ordinary citizens to maintain authority over their state constitutions.

That means US… marriage supporters and defenders. Should gay marriage supporters ever get an initiative of  their own on the ballot, we can always vote again, and again, and have our voices heard in favor of real marriage, again!!! As long as we stand together and stay focused on what we want, and get out there and vote, they won’t be able to reverse this.

Early 20th-century progressives had a deep distrust of state judicial authority for the very good reason that many decisions were antithetical to a more just and humane society. The relative ease with which Californians — and residents of other states — can amend their state constitutions owes much to the “direct democracy” reforms led by progressives.

When Theodore Roosevelt, the Progressive candidate for president in 1912, proposed the recall of state court decisions to enable “the people themselves” to decide constitutional issues, he was responding to our democracy’s inherent tension between judicial authority and democratic legitimacy. And when Larry Kramer, the preeminent progressive scholar of “popular constitutionalism,” criticized William Rehnquist’s Supreme Court, he noted, “The Supreme Court is not the highest authority in the land on constitutional law. We are.“

The author writes:

The idea that judicial authority is not ultimate constitutional authority can be particularly unsettling when citizens choose to amend their state constitutions to limit rather than expand rights.

That’s too bad. We, the majority, have just as much right to our vote as the gay minority. Everyone gets one vote!!!!! Just because they don’t like how we voted, does not make our votes any less valid, although they are trying to make it seem that way because they don’t like the outcome. Majority rules in our State Constitution.

The methods by which voters may amend state constitutions, although varying from state to state, are far more flexible than the process by which the U.S. Constitution may be amended. A decision of the U.S. Supreme Court may be “overturned” by constitutional amendment, but that event is rare. It has happened only four times in our nation’s history, and once, it required a civil war. In contrast, in the past decade, citizens in more than two dozen states have amended their constitutions through popular vote to reverse or forestall favorable consideration of gay marriage claims.

This is a nice sentiment, but I’m all for state’s rights! People should have control over their government, not the government having control over the people. I think that the legislators need to take some history refresher courses. The citizens of California are the ultimate constitutional authority, not the court and not the legislators.

Check back for more marriage info this weekend. Thanks for reading!!!

In a significant move for open-election laws, the U.S. Supreme Court today rejected an attempt to overturn a federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision that the state of Arizona could not require independent presidential candidates to register earlier than candidates affiliated with major political parties.Arizona’s petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court had been closely watched after 13 other states supported Arizona’s bid to have the High Court hear the case. The federal civil rights case, originally filed in Arizona federal district court, stems from Nader’s 2004 presidency bid.

Ralph Nader had challenged the deadline, contending it violated his First Amendment rights to free speech and political association. Lead Attorney Robert Barnes of the Bernhoft Law Firm represented Nader before the Ninth Circuit, which overturned the district court and unanimously declared the Arizona law unconstitutional. Nader’s Bernhoft Law legal team successfully argued that requiring independent candidates to register by June was unfair when the two major political parties did not hold their conventions until the fall.

read more | digg story

The Bible tells us that Yahweh (simply “God” to most people) created Adam.  The creation of Adam is first described in Genesis 1:26-27.  The word translated “man” in this passage is indeed the same word, and refers to the same being, described in more detail in the next part of Genesis, which begins at 2:4.  Many years ago these were separate scrolls and separate accounts – albeit about much the same thing – later consolidated into a single “book” by men.  The third part of Genesis begins at 5:1, and in another way the story of the creation of “adam” man is again related.  It turns out, however, that the Hebrew meaning of “adam” isn’t quite the same as the modern meaning of the word “man”, which nowadays is basically used to describe any full-grown male anthropoid.  In fact, “adam” signifies only those full-grown anthropoids of which the blood can be seen through the skin.  This condition is called ruddiness, and is peculiar to the (true) White race.  This is also evident further on in the Bible, to anyone who actually knows history.  A thorough examination of the families of Genesis chapter 10 reveals that many of these nations can be identified in history and archaeology, and that they were all originally White nations.  Many of them eventually became “arab” (a Hebrew word which means “mixed”), or even negroid, through a process known as miscegenation, but originally they were all White.

A further examination into the Bible reveals that the other so-called “races” of men, the non-Whites, were not mentioned as having been created by Yahweh (God).  Rather, the Bible describes “beasts”, or “beasts of the field”, who have the power of reason to some extent, and humanoid traits such as hands and speech, and who have the ability to consciously mate with White women.  Examples of note which make reference to this sort of beast are found at Genesis 9:5, Leviticus 20:15-16, and Hebrews 12:20.  So if Yahweh (God) did not create the other races, from where did they originate? The answer to that is not in the Bible, and thus it can only be inferred.  In the apocryphal Hebrew literature it is explained that a race of fallen “angels” went and mixed themselves with every kind of creature on the planet.  This race of fallen “angels” is alluded to in the Bible in many places, such as in the “serpent” of Genesis chapter 3, in Genesis chapter 6, in the gospel of Luke, in the epistles of 2 Peter and Jude, and in Revelation chapter 12.  (A full study of this topic, The Problem With Genesis 6:1-4, is available at http://christogenea.org.) Therefore it only follows that the non-Adamic races descended from these fallen “angels” and their violation of Yahweh’s (God’s) law of Kind after kind, which is so often repeated in the Book of Genesis.  This can be substantiated from several other Biblical passages that discuss the “worshipping of angels” (Colossians) and the offspring of “strange” (i.e. foreign) gods (Malachi).  Where Yahshua Christ says that “Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up”, He certainly wasn’t making a botanical reference.

With all of this background, we may now discuss the last U.S. Presidential election, and the worship of the beast.  For certainly there was no election in the history of the country like this past election.  There were women swooning and fainting at Barak Obama appearances, while the supposedly “unbiased” media openly hailed him as some sort of “messiah”, clearly being not only adored, but actually even worshipped by crowds.  It would never before have been believed that so many otherwise “normal” White men and women would be so anxious to have a negro be the President of this nation, even a negro whom the great majority of them know absolutely nothing about.  And all this in spite of the fact that he is a Marxist – something which is absolutely evident in his own books – and that he has both a wife and a long-time pastor, along with a string of close friends and associates, who have repeatedly expressed a hatred for everything represented by the United States of America in particular, and Western Christian Civilization as a whole. Yet behind the scenes, Barak Obama – the candidate for “change” – is propped up by a clique of Wall Street and Washington insiders, many of whom are jewish, and many of whom cut their teeth in the administration of the first so-called (at least quite frequently in some circles) “black president”, Bill Clinton, all led like marionettes by a former ballet dancer, the jew Rahm Emanuel, his top advisor and Chief of Staff at the White House.

From Revelation chapter 13: “⁴ And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?”   While this passage is clearly discussing a different beast in a different age (as can be demonstrated at length), is it not indicative of today’s circumstances? The Bible, and specifically the Book of Revelation, identifies the Edomite-jew as the Dragon.  This is apparent in Revelation chapter 12: for only Herod, who was also an Edomite-jew, could possibly be the dragon being described here.  An examination of all of our recent presidential administrations, as well as the administrations of many world leaders in recent and not-so-recent history, reveals the Edomite-jew operating in support positions behind the scenes, and as the primary instigators and financiers behind most elections and most revolutions.  Even the Bush administration, elected two times primarily with the support of conservative “Christians”, is staffed and run by Edomite-jews, and it is suspected that the Bush family itself has descended from Edomite-jew blood.   With certainty it can also be shown that the same dragon behind this modern beast of today was behind the beasts of old. That dragon, the Kenite-Canaanite-Edomite jew, is shown to have its descent from Cain through Canaan and then Esau, mixed with many other races along the way, as the Bible in both the Old Testaments and New fully informs us. 

Yet no U.S. President before this current one was clearly and openly a mamzer, the Hebrew word for someone of mixed blood, and therefore certainly a beast.  At Deut. 17:15 we read: “one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.  Being a mamzer, Barak Obama is in every way the “image of the beast”.  Revelation chapter 16 speaks of a time closer to our own, and it may or may not have already commenced:  “¹ And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth.  ² And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.”  Such is the fate that all of those unsuspecting, poorly informed Whites who voted for the beast in this last election have invited upon themselves.

http://christogenea.org

New York Times

Some people claim that Barack Obama’s election has ushered in a “postracial” America, but the truth is that race, and racial discrimination, are still very much with us. The Supreme Court should keep this reality in mind when it considers a challenge to an important part of the Voting Rights Act that it recently agreed to hear. The act is constitutional — and clearly still needed.

Section 5, often called the heart of the Voting Rights Act, requires some states and smaller jurisdictions to “preclear” new voting rules with the Justice Department or a federal court. When they do, they have to show that the proposed change does not have the purpose or effect of discriminating against minority voters.

When Congress enacted Section 5 in 1965, officials in the South were creating all kinds of rules to stop blacks from voting or being elected to office. Discrimination against minority voters may not be as blatant as it was then, but it still exists. District lines are drawn to prevent minorities from winning; polling places are located in places hard for minority voters to get to; voter ID requirements are imposed with the purpose of suppressing the minority vote.

After holding lengthy hearings to document why the Voting Rights Act was still needed, Congress reauthorized it in 2006 with votes of 98 to 0 in the Senate and 390 to 33 in the House. Now, a municipal utility district in Texas that is covered by Section 5 is arguing that it is unconstitutional, and that it imposes too many burdens on jurisdictions covered by it.

If the Supreme Court — which is expected to hear arguments in the case this spring — strikes down Section 5, it would be breaking radically with its own precedents. The court has repeatedly upheld the Voting Rights Act against challenges, and as recently as 2006 it ruled that complying with Section 5 is a compelling state interest. It would also be an extreme case of conservative judicial activism, since the 14th and 15th Amendments expressly authorize Congress to enact laws of this sort to prevent discrimination in voting.

A perennial criticism of Section 5 is that it covers jurisdictions it should not, or fails to cover ones it should. There is no way to construct a perfect list, but Congress has done a reasonable job of drawing up the criteria, and it has built flexibility into the act. Jurisdictions are allowed to “bail out” if they can show that they no longer need to be covered, and courts can add new jurisdictions if they need to be covered.

In last fall’s election, despite his strong national margin of victory — and hefty campaign chest — Mr. Obama got only about one in five white votes in the Southern states wholly or partly covered by Section 5. And there is every reason to believe that minority voters will continue to face obstacles at the polls.

If Section 5 is struck down, states and localities would have far more freedom to erect barriers for minority voters — and there is little doubt that some would do just that. We have not arrived at the day when special protections like the Voting Rights Act are not needed.

6/25/08:
Minorities and the vote in democratic society:
Once given the “right” to vote, minority groups will always vote practically en masse for their own interests, for the candidates whom they perceive as catering to their desires. This will always be at the expense of the majority, who represent the actual fiber and substance of the host nation, and it is absolutely inevitable that in this manner the minority group becomes a virulent parasite. So in late 20th century America, 90% of negroes, 90% of jews, and better than two-thirds each of ladinos, southern (arab) so-called “Italians” and arab so-called “Sicilians”, and other related ethnic groups all consistently vote for the “liberal” socialist party – which in America is usually the Democratic Party (although today the Republican party is not any less socialist at the national level and in many states). Minorities, as soon as they are granted suffrage, immediately begin working against the interests of the majority within the nation, and even though they usually cannot immediately elect candidates of their own race, soon enough greedy and power-hungry men form among the host population to take advantage of the situation by offering minority groups special favors or privileges in return for their votes – always at the expense of the majority.

http://christogenea.org/

Did you know that there is a system in the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, and as per the
1969 act, in section ” 49-O” that

a person can go to the polling booth,

confirm his identity,

get his finger marked and

convey the to presiding election officer that he doesn’t want to vote anyone,

the presiding officer has to make a remake stating u have choosen Not To Vote for any of the cotestents,

and has to obtain a signature or thump  impression, along side ur name as per the electoral voters list.

This is called “49-O”.
and THE POWER of 49-0 is 

if in a ward, if a candidate wins, say by 123 votes,

and that particular ward has received more than 123 ”49-O” votes (or I VOTE NOBODY),

then that polling will be cancelled and will have to be re-polled.

Not only that, but

the candidature of the contestants will be removed and

they cannot contest the re-polling,

since people had already expressed their decision on them.
This would bring fear into parties and hence look for genuine
candidates for their parties for election. This would change the way;
of our whole political system….

Don’t Vote!

I received a call from a Caucasian female friend of mine who I haven’t spoken to in a long time.   You know the kind of friend that you hold close to your heart, yet life gets in the way and you don’t call each other all the time, except to wish each other a Happy New Year.  Well, she called me and in celebratory tone, extolled on how great it is that we now have an African-American president, how this country can now put racism in the past, etc.  Of course, she assumed since I am a “piel canela” Latina that I’d be just as happy as her to have a president that had my same color of skin.

Excerpt from our conversation:

ME: “So instead of a ‘W’ we now have an ‘O’ – so what do I get out of this after 2 states had their votes stolen from them – as well as at the sham convention in Denver?  Do I get a unity pony?   How can you justify stealing votes to win?  Just 8 years ago you bitched and moaned over Gore and how the Republicans stole the election…”

FRIEND: “But it was the only way we can have a black president!  You know how many people in this country are racist. It was the only way to achieve that.  It’s wrong, but ultimately it’s the right thing to do.”

ME: “So the hell with Democracy, let’s get a black president instead.  What kind of precedent is this setting then?  Two wrongs make a right only because he’s black, is that what you’re saying?”

FRIEND: “You gotta get over it, what’s done is done.  Let’s see how he does and if he doesn’t do good then they’ll be another election and he’ll get voted out.  Simple.  But let’s give him a chance first.”

ME: “Sure they’ll be another election.  Another fraudulent one, of course.  And what about our voter rights?  What about women’s rights?  GLBT rights went out the window now – you saw how Proposition 8 and 2 failed, right?”

FRIEND:  “The Mormons did that, they all voted against that.”

ME: “100,000 Mormons in California and Florida voted against it?  Riiight.  I can’t believe what I’m hearing!  Obama’s brand New Shiny Democracts voted for the Ban.  How can you justify that?  All Obama could’ve said is all people deserve to have their rights, no matter who they are.  Then more people would’ve followed his lead.”

FRIEND:  Yeah, but he needed to get elected first.  It’ll happen sooner or later.

ME:  ARRRGH!!!!!!!!

The conversation went on and on as my blood pressure rose.   The only thing we have to do for now is let anyone and everyone caught up in their Kool-Aid Symbolic Moment jump for joy wntil it wears off.   Our rights have been chipped away little by little with Dubya – and they aren’t coming back like my friend thinks they are under an Obama presidency.

Sooner rather than later, my friend will see what a terrible mistake it was to trade in her rights just to have a symbolic presidency.  Why would President-Elect Obama buy the milk when she, like many others, gave up the “Human Rights, Voter Rights, Women’s Rights, Gay Rights, Civil Rights” cow for free?

Politics in Minnesota reports:

November 4, 2008: The entrance to my polling place reflects the makeup of the surrounding community

This afternoon, I cast my ballot for Barack Obama.

Less than ten minutes after arriving my polling location, I was stating my address and handing over my identification. An enthusiastic election official complimented my passport photo and directed me to one of the many available voting booths. From behind the privacy of a partition, I made my selections. I then walked over to the optical scanning machine to insert my ballot. I was assisted by a gentleman who was ultra-cautious to look away from the paper in my hand, sending me on my way with an accented “congratulations.”

For me, there were no lines. No one tried to influence my vote by threatening my liberty, my safety or my status. Gender, race, religion, class, sexual orientation, profession, political persuasion – none of these prevented me from excercising my right to vote. Not only is my choice of candidate my secret to keep (or share!), but it also isn’t something that could cost me my citizenship or my life. Walking away, I was more or less confident that my vote was accurately counted.

My 2008 ballot

Well – duh, right? I’m in America, not one of those “other” places, where intimidation is par for the course or where women and minorities are barred from voting.

Not so fast. It isn’t all democracy and free choice here in these United States. In fact, the fight against basic American rights is not just sobering – it’s frightening.

In Virginia, flyers bearing a mockup of the state’s official seal were distributed, indicating that Democrats should actually show up to vote on Wednesday — the day after election day. Latino voters have been phoned in Nevada and elsewhere, being told that they can vote over the phone rather than by showing up at the polls. Individuals have even been threatened with jail should they show up to cast their ballots.

These attempts at thieving Americans’ rights have targeted youth and minorities - groups that have come out in overwhelming support of Barack Obama. For the Republicans, there could be no greater stain on their patriotic party line than this crime against the very principles upon which this country was founded.

Disenfranchisement is nothing new. In fact, the stories you’re hearing here and on the news only begin to scratch the surface on just how disempowering the American electoral process is for many.

For as monumental as it would be for an African-American candidate to win today’s election, it is just as significant that America’s criminal disenfranchisement laws mean that 13% of African-American men cannot vote at all. We live under a criminal justice system that already disproportionately targets black men. What this means around election time is that in some states, one in five black men is stripped of his voting rights. Human Rights Watch projects that, given current rates of incarceration, some 40% of African-American men will at some point find themselves permanently disenfranchised.

Nationwide, 1.4 million Americans (of all races) are prevented from voting – despite having already served their criminal sentences. These are ex-offenders who have re-entered society and who are expected to meet other requirements of law-abiding citizenship, including the payment of taxes.

Preventing these individuals from voting serves no defendable purpose. To argue that preventing ex-offenders from voting preserves the “virtue” of the voting booth is to say that our criminal justice system is not a place for rehabilitation or reform – but merely a “holding tank” for the subhuman. It also asserts that “virtue” is effectively a qualifier for American citizenship, including for the natural-born. Individual virtue is not the same as respect for the law, and possible governmental determination of who is “less virtuous” is a terrifying prospect.

“Restrictions on the franchise in the United States seem to be singularly unreasonable as well as racially discriminatory, in violation of democratic principles and international human rights law.” – Human Rights Watch

What can you do?

* Check out the ACLU’s website on voting rights.

* Learn more from Human Rights Watch.

* The Democratic Party provides resources here.

Yes, another Rachel Maddow video. Bear with me. I’ll quit it eventually. Wait…bullpucky. No I won’t. Enjoy:

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about voter complacency and almost as an aside, I mentioned voter suppression. Tonight on MSNBC’s “Rachel Maddow Show”, Ms. Maddow spells out as explicitly as possible the variety of ways that scoundrels are trying to steal your vote. The scams go like this:

• You can vote by phone.
• If you have outstanding parking tickets, you’ll be arrested at the polls.
• To battle heavy voter turnout, there will be voting on November 5.
• You’ll forfeit your financial aid as a student if you vote at college and not at home.

All of this is BALONEY! All of this is designed to prevent people from exercising the most precious right we have as United States citizens. These scams are particularly targeted at the elderly or anyone else the scammer thinks might be ill informed.

Rachel Maddow concludes her piece with this simple and potent plea.

Choose who you will but do not give up the power to choose by letting anyone or anything stop you from voting.

Watch the following video and if you have any friends or relatives who you fear might fall victim to these scams, please email them the video or better yet, give them a phone call and make sure they know where to vote and that their vote must be cast November 4, and no later.

For more info and excellent resources on your voter rights, please visit this recent post by MJ “RevoltingPawn”.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#27508339

Please watch this video.

Please watch this video, your country needs you! Any charitable or advocacy work being done in the world around us relies on each countries leaders. Support from our leaders does matter in the end, who we choose to work for us matters. Be strong and endure; don’t let anyone take away your right to vote.

Attorney Cliff Arnebeck, cyber-sleuth Steven Spoonamore and author Mark Crispin Miller explain the background the ‘Connell Anomaly,’ named for Mike Connell, allegedly Rove’s IT fixer, who, in a late-breaking story, has been ordered by District Judge Solomon Olive to testify on Monday.According to Arnebeck’s press release,”Connell was a key inside IT contractor for Ken Blackwell in the administration of the 2004 and 2006 elections, while managing the IT function for the Bush Presidential campaigns andother Republican partisan campaigns in 2000, 2004 and 2006. Plaintiffs’ counsel and Plaintiffs’ cyber security expert Stephen Spoonamore in the King Lincoln case before US District Judge Algenon in Columbus have identified Connell as a key witness to Karl Rove’s various maneuvers affecting elections during this decade.”

Remember: Mike Connell, Rove’s boy, is the guy who said he helped steal the election to “Save the babies.”

View the video here.

Following the My Voting Strategy Series, here is my own:

E. B. White: Democracy is itself, a religious faith. For some it comes close to being the only formal religion they have.

George Orwell: In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

George Washington: As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.

Jesse Jackson: In politics, an organized minority is a political majority.

John Bright: Demand the ballot as the undeniable right of every man who is called to the poll, and take special care that the old constitutional rule and principle, by which majorities alone shall decide in Parliamentary elections, shall not be violated.

John F. Kennedy: We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.

John Gardner: The citizen can bring our political and governmental institutions back to life, make them responsive and accountable, and keep them honest. No one else can.

John Quincy Adams: Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.

Lyndon B. Johnson:We preach the virtues of democracy abroad. We must practice its duties here at home. Voting is the first duty of democracy.

Mohandas K. Gandhi: When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall — think of it, ALWAYS.

Molly Ivins: The thing about democracy, beloveds, is that it is not neat, orderly, or quiet. It requires a certain relish for confusion.

Robert M. Hutchins:The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment.

There is no way I can stand by a candidate and a party (which I have been a lifelong member of) who 8 years ago this very month accused Republicans of subverting Democracy – and yet without thinking of the voters of Michigan and Florida, turned a blind eye on voting irregularities and caucus voter fraud all for the sake of “party unity.” The Democratic Party leaders selected and not ELECTED a candidate who benefited immensely from voter fraud and sexism, ignored the popular vote and ran a sham convention in Denver by casting our votes in a manner that did not fairly reflect our intent.

But this November 4th, I will vote for John McCain only as a means to defeat Barack Obama in my swing state of Florida.  Had the polls favored John McCain more in my state, I’d probably vote for Cynthia McKinney.  Yet I did find one issue that made me cement my decision:  John McCain is the co-author (together with Ted Kennedy) of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill which humanely and productively handles the immigration crisis in the United States.  So my vote is without a doubt a protest vote, but it’s also mixed with an issue I support greatly.

If you live in a battleground swing state but feel resistance to voting for a Republican, find a PUMA friend in a deep Red or a deep Blue state.  DakiniKat and I made a voting pact – she lives in Louisiana which is a deep Red state polling favorably for McCain.  She’ll cast my intent for McKinney and I’ll cast a PUMA vote here in Florida for McCain.  On November 5th, 2008, it’s business as usual.  I will actively pursue to rebuild the Democratic Party and fight for party leadership that will uphold and defend our Democratic and Liberal principles with ferocity and conviction – and not be led by DINOs like Barack Obama, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, among others, who do not understand nor care for the Democratic Party base nor for the Democratic principle that one person = one vote.

I urge you to vote your conscience.  We are not cutting off our nose to spite our face. We are defending the fundamental right which makes this country a Democracy.

“A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither” Thomas Jefferson

And with that, I do declare Party Unity My Ass – and let freedom ring from sea to shining sea.

¡Que viva los PUMAs!

UPDATE:  Since DakiniKat posted her “My Voting Strategy: A Better Tomorrow” , I asked her to cancel our voting pact because I truly feel she should cast her vote as she intends to, rather than her casting mine.   Thank you to all & PUMAtize your vote!