Tag Archives: 2016 election

Protecting Our Elections

Posted on by

The only real way to protect our elections is to elect people to office who will uphold the U.S. Constitution.  A recent incident in Virginia illustrates why that is important.

Breitbart posted an article yesterday about the recent actions of Virginia Governor Terry MacAuliffe.

The article reports:

Gov. Terry McAuliffe has illegally granted voting rights to 60,000 convicted felons in the key swing state of Virginia, a move that could give Hillary Clinton a victory in that state—and possibly the White House—unless supporters of Donald Trump get out to the polls on Election Day.

Like many states, the Virginia Constitution provides that if a person commits a felony, with their lawbreaking, they forfeit the right to vote for candidates who will make and enforce those laws. But it also grants the Virginia governor clemency power to pardon criminals and commute sentences, including the power to restore voting rights.

…Virginia lawmakers sued, and the Virginia Supreme Court held in Howell v. McAuliffe that the Clinton ally’s political move was an unprecedented power grab that previous governors of both parties had acknowledged was illegal.

Among other things, Virginia Chief Justice Donald Lemons wrote that “power could be exercised only in particular cases to named individuals for whom a specific grant of executive clemency is sought,” and only after an individualized assessment of the felon’s case and character.

There are a few interesting aspects of this story. Statistically convicted felons vote Democrat. Why? Also, I understand that this is a hard-fought campaign, but this is disgusting. How many of these convicted felons will be contacted and paid money for their votes? Why did the Virginia courts refuse to uphold the law?

It really is time to drain the swamp. The Clinton crime syndicate needs to go. The American voters are responsible for the character and morality of their leaders. Politicians who put party above the good of the nation need to be voted out of office.

A Very Good Picture Of Where We Are

Posted on by

The Canada Free Press posted an article yesterday about the American presidential election. It is always interesting to get a perspective on American elections from the press in other countries. The Canada Free press tends to be very conservative and very much a supporter of liberty and freedom in the United States.

This is the heart of the article:

Is “choosing neither of two evils” always the right choice? Is it always the wise choice? Is it always the moral choice? What if, God forbid, something like this happened: Let’s say that devout Muslims capture you and your family, hold a gun to your head and say, “You have one of two choices: We will either behead your children, or, alternatively, we will cut off your foot, patch you up and send you hobbling along your way. Choose one. If you refuse to choose, we will choose for you.”

…Imagine our two families are miles from land in a sinking boat,” writes pastor John Barber (no relation) at The Aquila Report. “Suddenly, out of the mist, come two boats to save us. One is captained by an adulterer; the other is captained by a thief. Which boat will you get into? You say, ‘Neither one. I’m waiting for the evangelical boat which is captained by a devout Christian who will end abortion.’ I say, ‘You’re kidding, right?’ You reply, ‘Both these guys are reprobates and I’m not going to choose between two evils.’”

To expand on pastor Barber’s analogy, let’s say that the boat with the thief is worse than first thought. As it approaches we immediately discover that it’s crawling with pirates and that if we come onboard, our doom is assured. This certainly limits our options, doesn’t it? What now? Does getting on board with the adulterer mean we support adultery, or does it simply mean that, despite his moral failings, we believe he’s better equipped to get us to safety?

…”But there’s a third choice!” you say.

Sure, there may be a few pieces of driftwood floating about that represent options three, four or five, but we all know that a piece of driftwood has little chance of saving our families – especially with hungry sharks circling. You may choose a piece of driftwood out of principle, but are you willing to stake the lives of your family on what you perceive as the principled stand?

These are perilous times, and we’ve got difficult choices to make. When we’re sinking, sometimes God sends us a boat with a reprobate at the helm. He has a history of doing quite a lot with reprobates.

Will He this time?

God only knows.

Pray hard.

And then pick your boat.

For me, this article totally sums up November 2016.

Supporting Election Fraud

Posted on by

On October 21, Judicial Watch posted an article about a preemptive strike on North Carolina’s requirement for voter identification in the 2016 election.

The article obtained a copy of a letter from a lawyer for the State of North Carolina to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

The article reports:

…a speaker at a recent NAACP conference in North Carolina urged audience members to mislead the NAACP’s own members into believing they do not need to register to vote in advance, or that they do not need to vote at their assigned polling place. Why?  The letter alleges: To create confusion and animosity during the upcoming mid-term elections in North Carolina, and to use the evidence of that confusion in the ongoing litigation between Eric Holder’s Justice Department and North Carolina and to show that North Carolina’s election integrity laws are discriminatory. From the letter:

It is also our understanding that during the [NAACP conference], Rev. Barber urged those in attendance to take unregistered voters to vote during the Early Voting period and to engage in get-out-the vote activities that included transporting registered voters to vote in precincts in which they are not assigned to vote on Election Day, or words to that effect. The stated purpose for these activities, as I understand it, was to gather evidence for and thereby enhance plaintiffs prospects of success in the litigation involving [North Carolina’s Election Integrity Laws].

Why are liberal groups fighting so hard against laws that guarantee the integrity of the vote?

The article at Judicial Watch details past and present actions on behalf of voter integrity in North Carolina:

Judicial Watch has been actively involved in this sprawling North Carolina election litigation for the past two years. Judicial Watch has filed two amicus briefs in this case, one in 2013 and one in 2014, supporting North Carolina and election integrity. On both occasions, we were joined in our brief by our partner the Allied Educational Foundation and by local political activist Christina Merrill.  We also gave oral arguments and submitted an expert witness report to the trial court explaining that no one is harmed by these election integrity laws, but rather, these laws prevent fraud and ensure all Americans are confident that election results are fair and honest.

If true, the fact that the NAACP’s leaders appear willing to risk the confusion and disenfranchisement of their own members in order to deceive a Court about common sense election integrity laws speaks volumes about the intellectual bankruptcy of the left’s arguments.  The left’s weak arguments also explain why the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 7 to 2 vote, recently overruled the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ temporary injunction and held that North Carolina’s laws comply with federal law and should be used during the November 2014 election.  The litigation between North Carolina and the DOJ is expected to proceed further in 2015.

North Carolina’s voter identification law is supposed to be in effect for the 2016 presidential election. It will be interesting to see how much of a fight the political left is going to put up to prevent North Carolina’s voter identification law from taking effect. The law is obviously needed (see previously posted video of James O’Keefe being allowed to vote twenty different times in North Carolina). The question remains, “Why is the political left fighting to preserve voter fraud?”

The Kickoff Question For 2016

Posted on by

It is too early to be talking about the election of 2016, but evidently it is not too early for the press to begin demonizing the Republican contenders.

In January 2012, George Stephanopoulos asked Mitt Romney the following question at the Republican presidential primary debate (Newsbusters):

“Governor Romney, do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception? Or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?”

The question really made no sense–it was not related to any current issue, and some pundits on the right wondered why Stephanopoulos asked it. It became obvious later on that part of the Democrat strategy in the 2012 election was to accuse the Republicans of waging a ‘war on women’ and saying that Republicans would take away a woman’s right to birth control. The question was a preemptive strike to begin debate on a subject that was not really important, but had possible political value when dealing with an uninformed electorate.

The preemptive strike has now been aimed at Florida Senator Marco Rubio. GQ asked the Senator, “How old do you think the earth is?” What in the world does that question have to do with anything?

Shawn Mitchell at Townhall.com points out:

First is the premeditated bad faith of an upscale publication. The random question is untethered  from public policy, from issues in the US Senate, or measures Rubio might pursue. It arose from a singular goal unrelated to reporting current events: GQ wanted to conjure a killer question, something that might damage a popular potential GOP presidential candidate.  It’s easy to imagine the query came from a group brainstorm over lunch: “Think, people…how can we trip him?!”

Second on the list is the poisonous effect of unresting, perpetual attack machinery.  Scarcely had the interview hit GQ’s website and newsstands when it ricocheted across the blogosphere and commentariat, with sneers from the left and defenses from the right. Barack Obama is two months shy of putting his hand on the Bible for a second term. Yet, already an anticipated candidate for 2016 is under manufactured attack for how he might read that book’s teachings.

This is disgusting, and until America’s electorate becomes informed enough to make attacks like this ineffective, these attacks will continue. The media will not police themselves, but when Americans begin to ignore stories like this and stop buying the newspapers and magazines that publish this trash, the trash will end. It is truly up to us.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta