I thought the Judicial Watch's 'Verdict' article, in its June issue that I have referenced before in these pages, on the shenanigans going on in Massachusetts regarding voter registration was bad enough.1 But another article on the same sort of issue, in the inside pages of the issue, takes the cake.
First, to back up a bit. I refused to vote in the 2012 elections when - newly back in the States after many years living abroad - I discovered that my state, of California, was not requiring tough enough measures for 'voter integrity'. I could have been anybody living at my address - citizen, non-citizen, illegal alien; whatever - and there was no photo requirement proving that I was who I was saying that I was. It was all just names on pieces of paper - and at that, my name was not on one set of the voter rolls that were being used as we came in the door of the polling place, but was on another one. What??! What's with more than one set of names/registration rolls???...Disgusted, I turned around and, after announcing to the lead lady running the operation why I was doing what I was doing, left.
I want the vote in my country to mean something. What do we have to do, dip every voter's thumb in purple ink as they enter the premises???...best yet: Have a voter photo ID card, which it takes rigorous eligibility/identity requirements to obtain.
Anyway. Here was the Obama administration's Department of Justice playing footsie with "left-wing groups' in this business, of voter fraud/integrity/eligibility, in Massachusetts. And then came the story in Arizona.
In an article headed 'JW Active in Arizona Voter ID Law Supreme Court Showdown', the Verdict newsletter reported on such shenanigans going on in that state - a state that has an even more 'special interest' in voter integrity than many, for being on the front lines of the illegal alien issue. It turns out that the voters of Arizona passed a proposition in 2004 by a comfortable majority vote that required voters to show proof of citizenship to register, as well as having ID to prove that they were who they said they were when pitching up for the vote. And they were taken to court for it; and the Circuit Court involved ruled against the proposition, saying that its provisions violated certain provisions of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.
What are those provisions that it violated? Let's cut to the chase, and point out the provisions that it, in point of fact, upheld. As the JW amicus curiae brief on the case, recently before the SCOTUS, noted:
"The NVRA also does not provide that it is the exclusive authority on eligibility verification or that, as the Ninth Circuit contended, 'Arizona's only role was to make [the Federal] [F]orm available to applicants and to 'accept and use' it for the registration of voters.' [Emphasis added] The language of the statute not only does not prohibit additional documentation requirements, it permits states to 'require...such identifying information...as is necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant...' Besides express authorization for a state to 'develop and use' a form compliant with the statute's criteria, the NVRA also provides that 'each State shall establish procedures to register to vote in elections for Federal office...''
The article goes on:
"Judicial Watch further argues that, 'The Ninth Circuit also failed to give any weight to the stated goal of the NVRA to "protect" and "enhance the participation of eligible citizens as voters in elections for Federal office" as guiding purposes of the statutes. Under no sensible reading of the statute is the goal of election integrity advanced by allowing non-citizens to vote.' (Emphasis added.]"
To which I respond:
D'uh.
Two things here. One: What is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on about, in declaring that Arizona's Proposition 200 violated the NVRA?? It turns out that it was just following the lead of the Obama administration (and the previous one, also dictatorially-minded). Continuing from the article:
"The country has a real problem with election fraud. Independent research published by the non-partisan Pew Charitable Trust in February 2012 indicated that, at that time, approximately 24 million active voter registrations throughout the United States - or one out of every eight registrations - were either no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate.
"And the situation has gotten no better under the Obama administration, which not only refuses to enforce provisions of the [NVRA] requiring states to keep clean voter registration lists but attacks states that try to impose any voter integrity measures." (my emphasis)
That's one thing: voter registration lists. So far, so bad. Politics as usual???...but it gets worse.
Another thing is this business of the courts under the Obama administration trying to make the States just administrative units to the federal government. To one and all, I affirm:
This is a federal republic. Not a centralized republic. Except as usage has begun to make it so. Which erroneous and deceitful and dangerous usage needs to be shot down, before it gains any more fraction under this centralizing-crazy socialist administration than it already has. For we are not just talking about 'politics as usual' between the Democrats and the Republicans. We are talking about a takeover of the American constitutional Republic by socialists - the overthrow of the very rule of law, in moving from the rule of law to the rule of men.
"'We hope the Supreme Court sees the wisdom in these arguments,' said Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton. 'There is no coherent reason for refusing to allow states to check voter identification other than a desire to circumvent the law and let non-citizens determine the results of American elections...'"
As Michelle Obama has argued, in solidarity with the litany of the Left: such eligibility-checking requirements amount to voter "suppression".2 Whereas in reality they amount to simple common sense. Something that Leftists seem 'constitutionally' to lack.
But only 'seem' to. For, they know precisely what they are doing.
And why.3
And I, for one American citizen, won't have it.
And I hope that reason prevails. Before this confrontation comes to a greater clash than one just of political opinions.
Where I Stand:
Let there be no doubts, or mistakes.
I stand with The People. In their roles as responsible individuals; responsible for their own soul's development. Not bowed down as servants to and of the almighty state.
Get that behind me.
And Me. And Me. And Me.
---
footnotes:
1 front page story headed 'JW Sues DOJ for Records on Controversial Voter Registration Effort in Massachusetts; Corrupt Community Organizer ACORN Group Implicated in Scheme':
"...In March, the DOJ's Office of Inspector General issued a report raising questions about inappropriate coordination and conduct on this election integrity issue by the DOJ's Civil Rights Division and outside left-wing groups..."
2 Especially among the poor, they say. Oh? The poor don't need ID to do many things in the daily life of the national world that we all inhabit???....give me a break, Michelle. And please, don't ever try to take me for a fool again. Or the rest of us with any degree of common sense.
3 As with all the other totalitarian, revolutionary measures that have been going down with this administration. Enough ammo for the DHS to fight an all-out war for twenty years. The conditioning of the American people, through travel checkpoints, for a police-state, people-controlling mentality. The unconstitutional, brazenly dictatorial declaration of Obama's war with the Libyan state; and the coverup regarding the Benghazi scandal. The nation's unconstitutional, envelope-pushing surveillance of the AP and Fox News reporters, and of all of us.
A police state, desirous of as many illegal-alien votes as it can muster, before The People wake up fully to the wolf, not just at the door. But amongst them.
Breathing, now, right down their necks.
No comments:
Post a Comment