Monday, April 1, 2013

Obama Signs Executive Order Nationalizing Elections Over Easter


Obama Signs Executive Order Nationalizing Elections Over Easter

Obama_signs_Budget_Control_Act_of_2011Following rampant allegations of voter fraud in last November’s Presidential election, President Barack Obama defied his harshest critics this past week, by quietly signing an executive order establishing a Presidential administration dedicated to, among other things, registering non-English speaking citizens to vote.
Last Thursday, while the nation was busy preparing for their Easter holiday President Obama signed an Executive Order establishing the Presidential Commission on Election Administration, a wing of the federal government he has tasked with “election administration,”  a move critics say is an attempt to nationalize the country’s elections for partisan advantage.
The executive order, establishes a nine member board,  appointed by the President, that “shall be drawn from among distinguished individuals with knowledge about or experience in the administration of State or local elections…  and any other individuals with knowledge or experience determined by the President to be of value to the Commission.”
Among one of the missions of the board will be to “ensure that all eligible voters have the opportunity to cast their ballots without undue delay, and to improve the experience of voters facing other obstacles in casting their ballots, such as…  voters with limited English proficiency.”  A voting bloc that leans Democratic by a margin of 70% in most elections.
In a bold and unprecedented step, the executive order, which side steps any legislation or national debate, created a federal Commission that shall consider, ”the number, location, management, operation, and design of polling places; the training, recruitment, and number of poll workers;  the efficient management of voter rolls and poll books; voter education; and voting accessibility for individuals with disabilities, limited English proficiency, and other special needs.”
When confronted with the news, one Virginia local elections official called the move, “Frightening,”  adding, “Because of my position, I’m non-partisan, which is precisely why I find this to be so troubling.  The genius of American government is rooted in its separation of powers – not only between the branches of federal government, but also between the levels of government in general – state and Federal.  When we have a commission comprised only of individuals appointed by one man, from one party, from only one branch of the government, that will be setting rules and making suggestions as to how local elections should be managed it’s beyond alarming – it’s just plain wrong.”



http://constitutionschool.com/2013/03/31/obama-signs-executive-order-nationalizing-elections-over-easter/

21 comments:

  1. Who exactly will pay for this commission? Where in the budget will it's money come from?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's Obama money. It magically appears out of thin air.

      Delete
    2. Obamabucks,,,ah,,,disappearing ink on pink paper.

      Delete
  2. You and me and the rest of the fools that let this wanna be king abuse his authority, I heard all the poll workers will be bused in from the south side of Chicago, all equipped with Obama autographed bats to make sure no whitey gets any ideas...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First, no incident of massive voter fraud was ever found by any election commision. Second, I find your blatently racist comment most distressing.

      Delete
    2. You imply Obama is NOT a racist, the evidence speaks otherwise he is clearly not a passive player regarding racism, just ask Rev. Wright, his mentor. As to my stance regarding racism, the fact that you play that card makes you the problem.

      Delete
    3. I did not imply anything, Obama had nothing to do with it, I was refering to your comment, which is inexcusable.

      Delete
  3. BFD you find his commits "blatantly racist and distressing".. O my... I find them refreshingly crisp and to the point. This administration has proven itself to be anti white on many points.

    If the KKK were at a voting site standing in front with baseball bats they would be arrested and prosecuted -- NO DOUBT. If then a white president told his white DOJ not to prosecute white on black threats and crime --- lordly lordly, all hell would break lose..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Angie, I wasn't refering to this administration, I was refering to his comment. "I heard all the poll workers will be bused in from the south side of Chicago, all equipped with Obama autographed bats to make sure no whitey gets any ideas..." is not only racist, it is absurd.

      Delete
    2. If it happens in Philadelphia it's OK. If it happens in Chicago it's absurd.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK4yZ6OBlw8

      Go figure.

      Delete
    3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX4dcvIYk9A

      Delete
    4. I stand by my post Mick,,,,

      Delete
    5. Okay, Angie, that is your right, which I respect, even though I think you are wrong.

      Delete
  4. Hmmm, voters with limited proficiency in English. Gee, the cynic in me visualizes someone being 'helped' to vote by a 'properly credentialed' election board staffer, yes?

    Why the need for such a commission afterwell over two hundred years without?

    Jean

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Why the need for such a commission afterwell over two hundred years without?"

      States like Florida are the need for such a commission. I have to admit, reading this article gave me an uncomfortable feeling. I am NOT a fan of having a central government trump states rights. Then again, it was ridiculous we needed a federal court to declare a president because a local state was so F'd up they couldn't even count their votes. This past election, every other state had their shit together enough to conduct voting and count their votes in one day. When it comes to voting locally for a national candidate, there should be a minimum standard each state needs to meet.

      Likely, Jean, with your cynicism, you will not agree that Republicans have attempted to isolate target groups of voters that typically voted Democratic in order to make it tougher for them to vote. Nonetheless, that is how I see it. While I may not like a heavy handed solution like this one might turn out to be, it's not hard for me to see why it has come about. If people here believe this is solely to keep illegal Mexicans voting for Democrats, that's a pretty childish thought process.

      Delete
    2. Max,

      But is that childish thought all that childish? This president, a month or three before the election, declared he would take his time enforcing deportation laws. He won the Latino vote by a comfortable margin, yes? That's just one example. So, do you think there may be a little, eensy-weensy bit of a reason to be suspicious? I'll grant you it wouldn't be an easy thing to pull off, if there were any intent to do so, but I won't put anything past this creep who would be king.

      Jean

      Delete
    3. "but I won't put anything past this creep who would be king."

      That's the in depth maturity I'm looking for. The Republicans have lost the latino vote...for now. The reasons why they have lost that vote run deeper then immigration. But, for people who are intoxicated with calling Obama stupid names, there is an inability to accept that mainstream America is beginning to reject the party of old white dudes wholesale. So, they deride Obama, they deride anyone who voted for him as a slacker and they double, triple and quadruple down on stupid shit like rigging the system to block groups who have supported the Democratic party more then the Republican party.

      Soon enough, the Republican party will be catering to the Latino vote the way Democrats already have. Perhaps I should feel sorry for conservatives who will have to watch that travesty.

      Delete
    4. Max,

      I have my thoughts on the loss of the latino vote. I don't think it's solely the immigration issue, legal or not, but I think it is a major factor. I'm interested in reading your view.

      Intoxicated with name-calling? Not so much. I may appear to be that, but in reality I just have not been able to see how what Obama has been doing, or trying to do, would benefit the country as a whole. How he comes across to me is purely a subjective matter by definition, yes? I think I've said before that I wasn't too happy with the eight years of B43. I just happen to think what Obama has been espousing is to the detriment of the country in a more prolonged and fundamental way.

      We agree about Republicans having to cater. I think the more accurate word is pander.

      Jean

      Delete
    5. Fair enough Jean. My view on why Republicans have lost that vote; I won't deny, their thoughts or rather their words on immigration are a larger chunk then not. Their words are vitriolic and at times, demeaning. Certainly, coming to this country illegally IS breaking the law. On the other hand, I just don't believe it can be said that the vast majority are coming here to slack and get free shit. They are coming here to work, save money and create a better future for their children or to send money back home. From my interactions with them as a group in healthcare, they are very family oriented, typically quite religious and outwardly, carry themselves as respectable people. In general, I feel like the Republicans can't separate the demographic of Latino voter from illegal immigrant and as such, not wanted here.

      Additionally, I believe the Republican party is largely the party of white people and particularly white men. Setting aside debate of whether that is true for a second, I believe there is a resentment within the Republican party that their base is being out bred by Latino's and that Latino culture is in their face. They can relate to basically white European culture and Latino's aren't "like them". Many Latino's cling to their culture and especially speaking spanish. This rubs MANY the wrong way, some of which, I understand.

      Pander is a cynical way to look at it. Regardless of your beliefs Jean, you want our government to be responsive to what you feel is important. Why is pandering to Latino's and not pandering to address your concerns? As for Obama, whether I've responded as a smart ass or not to you Jean, I read you comments, TD's, and everyone else' comments here to infer what their bigger beliefs are. You are not a politically happy lot by any stretch of the imagination and I can't see any president satisfying any one of you. Obama has not been espousing "FREE SHIT FOR ALL PAID FOR BY THE RICH". Historically, by almost any standard, we have skewed the entire wealth structure in this country upward. Simultaneously, we have left behind a steaming pile of crap for the rest and their children. At best, IMO, Obama has paid lip service to a true liberal outlook, nothing more. In real terms, he has done very little to differentiate himself from George W. Bush, at least until very recently. But, I'm not going to try and sell that brand of crazy to you, I don't think your buying.

      Delete
    6. Max,

      I agree with a lot of what you say, Max. First and foremost, illegal Latino immigrants are coming here to work and help their families. I have the impression that Latinos are VERY family oriented, too. Poverty and religious values probably have a lot to do with that, and I say that with a humongous bit of respect. SOME words by conservatives are or can easily be viewed as vitriolic or demeaning. But that qualified view from me can apply to many, regardless of ideology, so I don't know that it is of much use, yes? Your opinion about the base being outbred, though, I don't quite buy, per se. As an aside, I think the wording could have been better, but if there is any 'concern' by the conservatives, it might be argued that it is because the increase in that population segment might be a difficulty by drowning out the conservative citizens' voice. That concern would be exacerbated by any relatively fast granting of citizenship status, even though 'fast' is a relative term. I don't know that it's going to happen quickly, but in a slower pace, umm, probably. There could be an aspect of pandering in that; possibly one reason republicans want some of the action?

      Digressing for a moment, you say Obama has not been espousing freebies, courtesy of the rich. I'll just say I'm raising an eyebrow. Skewing of wealth, certainly has been happening, but it deserves a LOT more disccussion and evaluation (I think I've made no secret of the fact that my spouse and I are firmly in the middle of middle class, right?). Leaving "behind a steaming . . ." suggests a process that I don't view the way you do. Corny as it may sound, there is opportunity in this country, and a good bit of that 'stuff' you metaphored as being left behind often, not always, not even necessarily most or least of the time, is what is availble to SOME of those who don't give it 100%. Okay, I'll step off the soapbox.

      I think the republicans got a small percentage of the Latino vote IS in part because of pandering (such as Obama in the last few months of the campaign deciding to delay deportations, his stance on immigration reform). And, as Obamacare issues continue to float up (got a disgusting metaphor in mind?), that, too, certainly seems to have some appeal. Another part just might be the image painted of the republican party as being soooo anti-Latino, let alone anti-illegal immigrant. Sure, part of it is how some conservative politicians voice their opinions, and what they say. A party of old white men? Sure, by the data, one can say that, but one can't automatically add " and for" to "of", I think. But it will probably continue to be presented that way. So, rightly or wrongly, what do I think will happen? More of what I call pandering from the right. Maybe I could rephrase that as 'more attempts to change the dialogue and appeal to a broader collection of the voting consistuency.' Good or bad? Pandering isn't per se a good thing, but then, 'appealing' to a broader base is the stuff of politics. Will it end up being a good or bad thing? Depends on whether the result is more people get more from those who have more, for no reason other than the recipients have less to start with.

      I also agree with you, a little, that in SOME ways Obama's behavior has not been that different from Bush's, but some of that has been acknowledging reality kicking and screaming. But 'lip service to a true liberal outlook'? No, I think it's been more than lip service. For sure, at the very least he has been talking as a very liberal politician.

      Thanks for sharing.

      Jean

      Delete
    7. "For sure, at the very least he has been talking as a very liberal politician. "

      At that is my point, he's done a lot of talking. When TD posted that link on inequality, I had hoped a genuine discussion would start where we could learn things from each other and perhaps challenge some pet theories. But, as usual, we can't seem to get past what a communist Obama is. Meh, I'm bored with that discussion, it says nothing.

      I posted awhile back about a book called Bailout Nation that's written by Barry Ritholtz. I thought it was an excellent book not because it espouses any liberal agenda but rather lays bare the precise failures of extreme free market thinking that was at the very center of the financial collapse. What he describes is what I watched first hand when I worked in the bond market and BTW, he is a hedge fund trader. If Obama was a true liberal, people would have gone to jail. But, like Bush before him and Clinton before that, he has conceded to letting wall street set our agenda.

      Quite honestly, I don't deny that free market capitalism does a lot of what it says it will. It provides incentive, it rewards hard work and it helps create efficient pricing. Sorta. What it doesn't do, contrary to all schools of economic thought, is keep the players in the market place honest or ethical. Buyer beware is the mantra. I also firmly believe, (again, contrary to academic thought) that the closer you get to pure free markets, the closer you get to winner take all societies where everyone who doesn't win not only doesn't get a consolation trophy but they walk away hungry, angry and determined to cheat if they need to stay in the game. The bailout nation guy described it as an "eat what you kill" mentality and that outlook, IMO, has come to dominate a lot of our society.

      Historically, we have reached the level of inequality that existed right before the great depression. There is no shortage of profit at the corporate level. The actual tax rate that corporations pay is typically well below what they are intended to pay. CEO pay has exponentially increased at time when working wages have stagnated. I've said that crap over and over and though no one ever disputes whether it's actually true or not, the discussion always comes back, "That damn Obama is killing everything". This is childish, but it typically ends the discussion and prevents anyone from asking the simple question, "Has the skewing of wealth gotten out of control and is it acceptable to let so few do so little to get so much?"

      Delete