Thursday, May 15, 2014

Goldwater page 193

 Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on August 31, 2013 at 12:50pm
Delete
AV law thoughts and links . .
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on August 31, 2013 at 12:51pm
Delete
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on November 10, 2013 at 10:27am
Delete

 George Washington,
who, in reference to our constitution, warned,

"Let there be no change [in the Constitution] by usurpation.
For though this, in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary
weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
 
Read page one about FDR and the Supremes . . http://recoveringfromchange.ning.com/forum/topics/goldwater-and-the...
 
Here is part of the above:
 
Hughes prevailed on Roberts to desert the Conservative camp, swing over with him and join the three liberals in declaring the
social security cases [Steward Machine Co. v. Davis
(301 us 548, May 24, 1937)]
Constitutional.[4] [P.56]
This Roberts did, and by
so doing, took the wind from the sails of the President's court packing plan.
It went back to committee and died. one
Administration official called the court's action,
"the switch in time that saved nine."


This decision said in effect, Congress would no longer be held to enumerated powers but instead could tax and spend for anything; so
long as it was for "general welfare."

But the words "General Welfare" in the introduction to the enumerated powers of Article I Section 8 were never intended to
be an object for extension of the power to tax and spend; and up
until the cases noted above, no court ever so averred.[Appx. 1]

The supreme court surrendered to the new deal on the most fundamental of constitutional issues. "it is scarcely conceivable
that Chief Justice Hughes and Justice Roberts... were unaware of
the political implications of their move. the President had lost a
battle but won a war.
In a remarkable series of decisions . ..the
Court executed the most abrupt change of face in its entire
 
 
 
 
 
 
OK here is the question: can the Court Prove the Marbury V Madison and the McCulloch V Maryland cases had a proper "FOUNDATION" to argue the case. Was the argument contrived and thus a usurping? If the court overreached in the two cases would the 200 + years of Case Law Theory precedent be voided? Was Marshall just ignoring the limits of Article III limits, did he import Hamiltons paper on Manufacturing in McCulloch as case law precedent when the paper was only dicta [side bar] in another case and therefore not "A PRECEDENT"?
 
With research and some writing a paper in the form of Supreme Court amicus curiae can we prove that Marshall was wrong and the Courts have been usurping powers not held? Can we then submit the amicus to the court for reading?
 
Who is interested in being involved with this work product?
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on December 4, 2013 at 4:53pm
Delete
Leftist Anger Explained:
I tend to think the arrogance and rage displayed by liberals is more demonstrative of who they really are at their core than anything we conservatives, libertarians, or anything slightly less Left than the angry leftists do or don’t do.  The rage is what drives them to be liberal in the first place.  They despise any limitations on their behavior, anyone who might hold them accountable, or any thought that they might not be allowed to do as they wish.
The rage stems from their own deep-seated guilt and self-loathing, projected onto everyone else around them. To disagree with them only exacerbates their pain, because it suggests they might be wrong, which raises, in their minds, the whole specter of accountability and judgment for their unwise choices.
This is also why the Left is so quick to blame the consequences for their choices, actions, and policies on others.  They will not tolerate anything that makes them look bad -- or worse, feel bad -- so every decision must be the right one because they WILL it to be so.  They deny both standards of right and wrong as well as reality itself, believing it all to be a socially-constructed prison…because that’s what they WANT to believe, so they can, in some sense, deny their true culpability.
Any kind of authority--whether it be God, religious, governmental, constitutional, police, military, parental, cultural or social--is going to be viewed as “the enemy,” unless it is their own self-authority.
They are narcissists, driven by their narcissism to scapegoat the world around them rather than accept their own flaws or endure the pain of growing up.  They are what M. Scott Peck called “The People of the Lie.”  They are evil, some more so than others, some less so.  Regardless, if you push them to check their premises or do any real thinking at all, you will push them to the point of their own emotional infantilism, and they will break wide open into full blown rage.
That is the nature of their mental disease.  No amount of counseling can overcome it.  They must willingly surrender it. And if not, we must either choose to let it fester, or choose to neutralize the threat, hopefully by isolating them and destroying the potential they have to influence others (like what happened to Dan Rather).
 By Michael J. Scott in a comment to an article by Judson Phillips, Tea Party Nation, 4/28/11
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on December 5, 2013 at 4:04pm
Delete
Permalink Reply by The Tradesman on December 4, 2013 at 6:03pm
Delete
Since it is generally believed that the young were most responsible for the election and reelection of Obama. And now they are having it shoved in their faces that he does not really care about them, only their votes.  Now that the expenses of Obamacare are hitting them,  so maybe we could start instilling those values in them now. I would think they are ripe for the truth to be told to them.
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on December 4, 2013 at 6:58pm
Delete
That is my sincere hope, how ever we have issues with our right side and the various single issue factions. The Evangelicals and the ultra conservative stayed home and did not vote in 2008 - and 2012 - we lost both the Presidency and the Senate as 4 million just stayed away. For some reason they can not see that the down ballots - Senate, House and then the State and local offices also were destroyed. 
So, that is when I really cranked up the effort to do the Article V as elections over 125 years have not changed the growth and usurped powers.
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on December 11, 2013 at 12:20pm
Delete
Reply by Jeff Dover 2 hours ago
Wisner, why don't you write your own posts instead of these editorials you spread in the posts of others?  Why not tell us all what you believe in an article of your own?
I know why you don't because that's not your purpose. 
You didn't read what I wrote, you're so busy with your own liberal agenda of spreading confusion and dispelling unity in conservative ranks.  Your inappropriate and liberal-identifying reference to what you suppose is the state of my genitals in an earlier comment tells me all I need to know about you.  Like Alec Baldwin, Martin Bashir and countless others, it's the kind of comment we've become accustomed to seeing from liberals in attacking conservatives.
Permalink Reply by Truly Patriotic Person 2 hours ago
Why are you attacking this  Enoch Wisner fellow, Jeff?
You opened this discussion for comments, and he's been quite civil. If you find that he's getting the best of you, why don't you close this discussion?
Permalink Reply by Enoch Wisner 44 minutes ago
Seems Jeff read your reply: the conversation has been closed.
Ah well...the courage of conviction seem to be wanting in Mr. Dover.
Permalink Reply by Enoch Wisner 1 hour ago
Testy, Jeff, but neither impressive nor true.
If you want to call me a liberal, be my guest - but please, have the decency to use my own words to support the indictment. I'll look for your reply.
As for my own beliefs, fine: here's a sample:
===
The principles of American governance were set out in the Declaration of Independence. It wasn't a legal document, but a statement of the principles the American people wanted their government to reflect. After Yorktown, in 1781, the Articles of Confederation, adopted in '77, became the law of the land. Its full title is: "The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union Between The States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia." 
 
By '86, the war debt hadn't been paid (the States were not remitting taxes to the federal government), States were employing the same unfair trade practices seen between the US and China, today, and the federal government was powerless to mend the problems. Delegates were therefore sent to Annapolis (still in '86) to amend the Articles...and failed. In '87, (largely) the same delegates were sent by their State legislatures to Philadelphia for another bite at the apple - still with the limited franchise of amending the Articles. 
 
Madison hijacked the convention, convinced that the articles couldn't be amended to suit the new nation's needs, and convinced the first quorum of delegates to arrive in Philly to essay to write a new constitution altogether. The project was wholly unauthorized - grossly insubordinate to the franchise the delegates were given by their State legislatures. When they were done, they presented a document "to form a more perfect Union" than the "Perpetual Union Between The States [...etc.]" of the Articles. 
 
But the new Constitution was not intended to be a wholesale departure from the Articles. This is Article II of the Articles: " Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." 


Compare that to the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." And Article III to the Preamble of the Constitution: "The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever." 
 
As for the "welfare" clauses common to both, this is what "welfare" meant in 1787: "Old English wel faran "condition of being or doing well," from wel (see well (adv.)) + faran "get along" (see fare (v.)). Cf. Old Norse velferð. Meaning "social concern for the well-being of children, the unemployed, etc." is first attested 1904." (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=welfare). 
 
An American, then, is someone who holds to States' rights before federal authority; who denies the proposition that government has any business in any "welfare" except to help people and States get along together. An American is one whose rights are natural rights, and completely unavailable to government to give, take or modify in any way. 
 
An American is an individual, not a creature of some collective. 
===
...and another (it's just a draft I've been working on, but you'll get the drift):
===
Winston Churhill once said of democracy, “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried,” and, “[t]he best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter”.  Thomas Jefferson said of democracy: “[it] is two wolves and a sheep, deciding what to have for dinner”. Majority rule is mob rule, another way of saying, “might makes right,” and, “our way or the highway”.

If such views of democracy sound anti-American, you don’t know much about the original design of United States government. Our Framers understood the danger of anything approaching genuine democracy. Alexander de Tocqueville (“Democracy in America”) coined a tidy little phrase for that danger: “the tyranny of the majority,” and he anticipated with regret the day our federal legislators recognized that their power to tax was the power to purchase their office “in perpetuity”. He predicted that that day would be the axis on which our ultimate decline and fall would turn.

The Framers tried hard to hedge against the dangers of democracy. They divided the federal legislature into two Houses, one (the House of Representatives) chosen directly and proportionally by the people, and the other (the Senate), comprised of delegates chosen un-democratically by their respective State legislatures.

The Framers assigned each House distinct powers and authorities designed to moderate the effect of democracy. The Senate, for example, is the chief curb on the popularly elected Executive’s power. The Senate has the sole authority to ratify treaties the Executive might negotiate, for example, and the Constitution requires a 2/3 Senate majority to make any international agreement preferred by the Executive binding on the States or on the people. The Senate also has a virtual veto on the Executive’s management team, having the duty to confirm or reject the Executive’s nominees to any appointed post. If any government office holder who can be removed from office only by impeachment is actually impeached, it is the (originally) un-democratically delegated Senate which conducts the trial – insulated (at least by design) from the political influence of popular sentiment.

The House of Representatives (“the House”), in contrast, is the exclusive chamber of origin for all bills of federal revenue. Our government is financed by the people’s blood, sweat and tears – their money – and the Framers intended that the people should have a more direct voice in how much they must bleed, sweat and weep to finance it. If a federal judge or the Executive does something the people deem egregious enough to warrant removal from office, it is the House that gives the people their opportunity for recourse: all bills of impeachment (essentially, the indictment on the case) originate in the House.

Perhaps most importantly of all – ours being a nation of law, not of personality – the Framers established a judiciary, chosen by the Executive and affirmed by the (originally) non-democratic Senate, that would thereafter be immune (if they chose to be) from the influences of popular sentiment – from the influences of the people, of democracy. Neither the House, the Senate nor the Executive were to be above the law, and what the law is was to be decided by judges beyond democracy’s reach.

The United States was very carefully designed not to be a democracy.

In 1913, however, with the ratification of the 17th Amendment, we became one. Thereafter, Senators have been elected directly, by popular vote, creating, in effect, a second House of Representatives, and eliminating the arm’s distance from democracy the Senate had operated under when its members were chosen by State legislators instead of by the people. The political terms of our existence has become as Jefferson described democracy: “two wolves and a sheep, deciding what to have for dinner”. If one ever wonders at the increasing political polarity in the US, one only has to consider the implausibility of two wolves and a sheep reaching compromise on the evening’s menu.

Our Framers believed that all men have the same, fundamental rights, whether they belonged to the faction of the wolves or of the sheep. Our Framers understood that a majority adequate to dictate the use of government’s powers was a simple quantitative superiority, and that a numerical minority might still be qualitatively powerful enough to seek to defend its interests by other means if it could not depend on government’s protection of those interests. In brief, the Framers understood that unrestrained democracy is the soil from which rebellion and civil war might too easily grow.

Simply writing the words, “rebellion” and “civil war,” is deemed a departure from good manners these days. Across the globe, however, bloody battles are being fought even today by those who demand relief from a status quo and by those seeking to preserve one. A man is not less sensible of being oppressed because he lives in the US rather than in Syria or in Egypt, nor is he more tolerant of oppression because he lives here instead of there. There is a point at which any and all men will deem oppression intolerable, and at which relief from oppression will be demanded. Convince a sizable enough, powerful enough minority that such relief is not possible under the terms of “two wolves and a sheep, deciding what to have for dinner,” and the demanded relief will be pursued outside the system of democracy that dictates those terms. This is not a call to arms, it is a simple fact of politics: in a paraphrase of Gen. von Clausewitz’s description of war and diplomacy, rebellion and civil war are simply the political process carried on by other means. When casting one’s ballot becomes a meaningless and futile gesture, the search will begin for gestures that are not meaningless or futile.

Rebellion and civil war, then, are the contingencies against which wolves that intend to continue on a diet of lamb must prepare and defend themselves. First and foremost, the universe of wolves must be conditioned to think of sheep as mere objects to which no sentiments of equality or mercy are due. The party of sheep must be demonized and denied any pretext upon which their claim of possessing rights may be justified. The universe of wolves must be conditioned to believe that sheep exist for the sole purpose of being their dinner, and that any objection to being such is rebellion of such magnitude that it may be deemed a rebellion against the order of Nature, herself. Next, and of almost equal importance, the party of sheep must be denied any means of asserting their rights outside the established system.

Historically, rebellions have relied upon two essential tools: the pen and the sword. The sword is so obvious a tool of rebellion that the wolves’ imperative to disarm the sheep need only be mentioned such that none suppose it has been overlooked. The pen is a bit less obvious a necessity of rebellion, but simply pausing to reflect on this essay so far may impress upon a reader just how important it is for the sheep to express their discontent and the injustices to which that discontent is due. Having recognized that function of the pen, there remain recruitment, coordination, strategic and tactical planning and communication: these, too, are functions of the pen essential to any rebellion.
Critics of this essay are likely to heap all the opprobrium on the author for coming perilously close to inciting rebellion in making the foregoing observations. Those observations are not offered to incite or even to introduce the notion of rebellion to the party of sheep, however: they are offered to suggest that the party of wolves is well along the way of planning and preparation against the contingency of rebellious sheep.
===
...and another:
===
Reading about ObamaCare in the public forum – the ACA – one of the most notable features of the discussion is that it almost entirely bereft of reason. Citations of public opinion polls abound, as do purported axioms that are by no means certain – “Every American deserves affordable health care”. No one has really challenged that proposition: “Why does every American deserve affordable health care?” Calling me a monster for even asking the question doesn’t answer it. That someone might live longer with the help of a healthcare policy isn’t a term of deserts: a person might be happier if he had your new car instead of his old one, but that doesn’t mean he deserves your car.
Public opinion also isn’t a reason to do something. “Two wolves and a sheep, deciding what to have for dinner” (Thos. Jefferson’s description of democracy): if majorities really did rule, who would vote for having to pay for food at the supermarket? The only motive to vote for paying would be some glimmer of reason to the effect that supermarkets won’t last long if we don’t. If that’s a minority view, you’d better start getting used to the idea of being very hungry.
Bringing government in to our problems invites a very special kind of complication. Imagine pulling out of a parking space at a mall, and putting a scratch on the next car’s bumper. Perhaps the scratch can be touched up and buffed out for a couple of hundred bucks, if you and the owner deal with the incident privately. If you call the police, though, and report the incident as an accident, you might be charged with careless driving, have points assigned to your license, your insurance premiums bumped up by a thousand or two a year, etc., etc., etc. It would be a crime to deal with such an incident privately, without police intervention, but it’s fairly easy to see how one might be sorely tempted to become a criminal: contrary to popular belief, government is not our fiend. We invited government into our lives (staying with the parking lot event) to make sure that damages others do to us are responsibly compensated, and what we ended up with was government with its own agenda, as much to be feared as the damages we asked it to protect us from – more feared, in fact, because it’s more costly in a host of different ways and it never forgets.
So, why bring government into health care? It’s a virtual certainty we’ll discover unintended consequences of the choice akin to those we brought upon ourselves by asking government to take authority over all out motor vehicle mishaps. Is the game worth that candle? We can’t provide health care services to people without health care policies without sending the costs to someone else to be paid: who? On what basis of equity can we take away one person’s property for some stranger’s benefit? The 5th Amendment includes something scholars call the, “Takings Clause”. It says, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Government has no authority to take private property for private use, and its authority to take private property for public use is attended by a lawful duty to compensate the owner, “just[ly]”. What is the “just compensation” for taking $20 of private property from a citizen, if not $20? And if the just compensation for $20 taken is $20 paid, why take the $20 in the first place?
Clearly, we cannot provide health care services to those without health care policies they pay for, themselves, without winking at the Takings Clause. Having established that precedent of disregard for the literal intent of the 5thAmendment, what bar remains for government’s similar disregard of this term from the same 5th Amendment: “nor shall [any person] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”? Do we really want to open the door to government forcing us to testify against ourselves, to government being able to throw us in jail without due process and to take our property and our lives without trials? We must be, if we don’t care that government isn’t held to the Takings Clause, which is the very next Clause in the 5th Amendment: “nor shall [any person] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”.
Which do the people really deserve? Health care, paid by government takings of private property, or the right to refuse to testify against yourself, to demand due process of law before government can throw you in jail, take your property and execute you? Your guarantee against the latter is the same as against the former: forfeit your protection against the one, and you forfeit your protection against them all.
Public opinion won’t change that. Empathy for our poorer neighbors won’t change that. Nothing will change that. And if you think it would never come to that, did you ever think you’d face the choice of paying for that scratch in the parking lot privately, and becoming a criminal, or obeying the law at a cost of thousands for the sake of a $200 scratch?
===
Now it's your turn, Jeff - both to demonstrate my "liberal" tendencies and your own political philosophy.
I can't wait to read what you've got.
Permalink Reply by Enoch Wisner 1 hour ago
...oh, and, Jeff, if you want more, I have lots more. These are just files on my MS-Word, "recently opened" list.
Permalink Reply by Carol Williams 1 hour ago
Gentlemen,
I have been watching this thread with some interest and am surprised and dismayed at the rancor it has raised. 
All involved have raised some excellent points, but as I see it, they are somewhat disconnected owing to what I perceived to be some misunderstandings early in the discussion. 
I think all here have acted in good faith and it pains me to see patriots at odds with each other. I hope we can agree to call this one a draw and place hostilities on hold until we see how things play out in future encounters. 
My very best to all of you. 
Permalink Reply by Enoch Wisner 1 hour ago
Thank you, Carol. In one of my other posts, I wrote: Aristotle made it a point to look for first principles; I make it a point to look for principles first.
Like Diogenes, I'm still looking.
Permalink Reply by Carol Williams 29 minutes ago
We're all looking, primarily for ways out of this quagmire. Which points up the fact that, in the end, we agree more than we disagree. 
In the meantime, there are more recent posts waiting for insightful interpretations and contributions from all you guys. May you all have a pleasant and productive day. 
    Permalink Reply by Enoch Wisner 14 minutes ago
    Well Jeff, we have your measure. I had hoped for more but, to be honest, I got what I expected - emotion, ad hominem commentary and cowardice.
    Let's hope you never meet a liberal. He'll take undue comfort in the belief that we're all like you - all hat an no cattle.
    Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado 17 hours ago
    Delete
    Jeff,
    maybe we need to identify the ones that we must attack instead of arguing with what should be our allies. How do you propose to make serious moves on the common enemy when one is identified - what are we to do = elections have not worked for 125 years so that method is proven failed - all of Reagan's progress is now gone - all of Newt progress is now gone.
    Permalink Reply by Enoch Wisner 15 hours ago
    Thank you, Mangus. I didn't begin by challenging Jeff's 7 points. All of them have merit. What I commented on was that "points" are supposed be the conclusion of an argument, not axioms we let pass as if they don't require arguments to support them.
    I wrote it before: politics is not unlike religion. Before Martin Luther, the Roman clergy held the keys to Heaven. Salvation was a mystery into which only the clergy were initiated. Luther changed that by bringing the New Testament to the laity and, with it, control of their own, eternal destiny. Jeff is treating Tea Party supporters as if the ancient Roman congregation: they don't need to know or understand the why and wherefore, just the what. I disagree - strongly. I believe what people need to write here is pretty much only the why and wherefore. If these are true, then the what becomes self-evident and almost redundant to write.
    I didn't intend to end up opposed to Jeff, but I'm finding myself increasingly so. It's condescending to tell the readers what to believe without telling them precisely what truths and facts underlie the belief. It treats the reader as if he were a child, there to bow to an orthodoxy and unwelcome to expect that orthodoxy to have foundations in reason.
    It is unworthy of the reader, and it is unworthy of anyone writing to be read.
    Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on December 11, 2013 at 12:36pm
    Delete
    Permalink Reply by Enoch Wisner 1 hour ago
    Thank you, Carol. In one of my other posts, I wrote: Aristotle made it a point to look for first principles; I make it a point to look for principles first.
    Like Diogenes, I'm still looking.
    Permalink Reply by Carol Williams 47 minutes ago
    We're all looking, primarily for ways out of this quagmire. Which points up the fact that, in the end, we agree more than we disagree. 
    In the meantime, there are more recent posts waiting for insightful interpretations and contributions from all you guys. May you all have a pleasant and productive day. 
      Permalink Reply by Enoch Wisner 32 minutes ago
      Well Jeff, we have your measure. I had hoped for more but, to be honest, I got what I expected - emotion, ad hominem commentary and cowardice.
      Let's hope you never meet a liberal. He'll take undue comfort in the belief that we're all like you - all hat an no cattle.
      Permalink Reply by Carol Williams 15 minutes ago
      Enoch,
      Taunts and parting shots do not become you. I am obliged to refer you toTOS.
      Please don't force the mods to take further action.  
      Permalink Reply by Enoch Wisner 2 minutes ago
      Carol, allow me to remind you:
      "Wisner, why don't you write your own posts instead of these editorials you spread in the posts of others?  Why not tell us all what you believe in an article of your own?
      I know why you don't because that's not your purpose.
      You didn't read what I wrote, you're so busy with your own liberal agenda of spreading confusion and dispelling unity in conservative ranks.  Your inappropriate and liberal-identifying reference to what you suppose is the state of my genitals in an earlier comment tells me all I need to know about you.  Like Alec Baldwin, Martin Bashir and countless others, it's the kind of comment we've become accustomed to seeing from liberals in attacking conservatives."
      ===
      I gave Jeff what he requires to demonstrate my liberal affinities. Of course, there are none, and that has been manifest throughout. If, in that light, my account of Jeff is not accurate, by all means, suggest a more accurate one. If the worst I have done is commit the faux pas of publishing an unsavory truth, however, I regret that contrition is quite impossible.
      Permalink Reply by Enoch Wisner 41 seconds ago
      ...one more thing:
      "Wisner, why don't you write your own posts instead of these editorials you spread in the posts of others?"
      I did.

      Our Domestic "Vietnam"

      Permalink Reply by The Tradesman on December 11, 2013 at 4:50pm
      Delete
      I think we all should take a step back and think about this; The 2012 election became the antithesis of the 2010 election simply because in the 2010 election everyone was united and focused on stopping a singular thing, Obamacare and removing the people who supported it. Now it seems that all the unity has become fragmented and we are turning against each other for no good reason. I'll go out on a ledge here and attribute this current phenomenon to all of us being close to burned out due to the response or lack of it we are getting from our representatives. It's time to bury our differences or at the very least agree to disagree and move forward towards our selected goal of getting an Article V amendment proposal convention called. If i'm out of line or if I have misread the intent of the thread and I admit I have not read it all I hereby apologize to any and all for my comments made in ignorance of all of the facts. All I can say is if we want to succeed, we will have to create and project a solid unified and focused force dedicated to our combined goal.
      Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on December 11, 2013 at 5:01pm
      Delete
      I am in 100% agreement and in fact I wrote a long piece on Reagan and the BIG TENT - room must be made for all - these L and I and some R are just venting and they stayed home in 2012 so my money says they stay home in 2014. I was part of the Reagan campaign and knew all the players including the President. 
      So, I know how it was done but now is a time of many factions and all are not honest brokers - many have undisclosed agendas . . I hope the right and center right can come together - many will just stay home as it is a non presidential year. Some one has to fire up the right and unite it again with the evangelicals - conservatives will not win except in the deep REDs - so count on turnout to carry the day.
      Keep in mind that R V D polls on Congressional approval mean zero for voters always blame the others not theirs. 
      Permalink Reply by The Tradesman on December 11, 2013 at 6:21pm
      Delete
      Mangus, here is a simple way to get the turn out we need, but it hinges on people actually getting up off their butts and going out to actually do something. I know for a fact that the Progressive Democrats are already out there stumping and doing these things especially at nursing homes because my wife works at one and has said they have come in already;
      1. In our own neighborhoods, taking an area of no more than ten blocks, or ten floors of a high rise apartment building per group, or canvassing an Adult assisted living center or nursing home is where we need to start. We need to get everyone out canvassing these places to see in everyone is registered to vote, has a way to get to and back from the polls, or has signed up or needs to be signed up for an absentee ballot.
      2. Get a voter registration list from your county clerks office, they are public documents and usually you can just get the clerk to e-mail you a copy. Use this list while canvassing to verify the people listed are alive and actually at the addresses listed on the voter list. Keep a record of anomalies ( voters listed that are not there ). Certify the anomalies on the list are correct, have it notarized when you are done canvassing, and turn it in to the person in charge of elections. Give  a certified "True Copy of Original" to the Clerk, and keep a certified true copy of original for use in challenging fraudulent voters the polls.
      3. When you have found out who needs transportation to and from the polls set up volunteers to shuttle them but make sure the volunteers get a one day rider on their insurance policies to cover them for any damages should an accident happen. Also get information from the clerk for the procedure and requirements to sign people up for absentee votes, and sign up those in need.
      4. Start now to get our people into positions at all the Precinct polling places. Positions like Precinct Chairs, Poll watchers, vote counters, challengers, any positions we can get into that are substantially volunteer positions. There will usually be a training requirement.
      5. This is important now, and even more so for a presidential election. Have a few people designated to watch outside for any voter intimidation and verify it through Photo's, cell phone videos,etc., and have those set up to transmit the information to a safe location ( like a lawyers computer files, or a trusted family member not using a computer in your house, etc.) at a moments notice. Also have three designated people, to be outside watchers at the polls, each with a different police agency number on their speed dial to immediately call the State Police, County Sheriff, and Local Police, and pre-arrange a signal where all three are called simultaneously if there is any physical violence, intimidation or threats in evidence.
      6. Optional, Have a flying squadron in a mobile format that can be called to make a show of strength if our people are threatened at the polls. Don't originate any violent act or start a confrontation, but don't be afraid to defend yourselves if necessary, and it would be a good idea to have someone off to the side making a video that shows who originated the confrontation or violence against us.
      Posted by at

      No comments:

      Post a Comment

      Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)