The Democrat Strategy Part II: Voting

“When the right-wing noise machine starts promoting another alleged scandal, you shouldn’t suspect that it’s fake — you should presume that it’s fake, until further evidence becomes available,” columnist Paul Krugman wrote in The New York Times.

So you wonder why the Liberal Media won’t cover or covers up stories like Rev. Wright, The Black Panthers Case, ACORN scandal, etc.
Or at least they won’t cover it like “journalists” actually would.
They are the Ministry of Truth after all.
So now we come to the Vote.
Supposed to be the most sacred act in America.
Unless you want to win by any means necessary that is. The end justifies the means.
So cast yourself back to 2000.
VP Al Gore has won the popular vote but not the Electoral College.
Forget all the crap about “hanging chads” and focus on the Electoral College.
Liberals have been fuming mad about this for 10 years.
Yes, it was the first time in nearly 200 years that this occurred. But it happened to THEM.
The vastly superior Liberal Progressives. That can’t be allowed to stand.
Problem is, it’s in the Constitution.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution specifies how many electors each state is entitled to have and that each state’s legislature decides how its electors are to be chosen. U.S. territories are not represented in the Electoral College. The Electoral College is an example of an indirect election.
Citizens vote for electors, representing a state, who are the authorized constitutional participants in a presidential election. In early U.S. history, some state laws delegated the choice of electors to the state legislature. Electors are free to vote for anyone eligible to be President, but in practice pledge to vote for specific candidates and voters cast ballots for favored presidential and vice presidential candidates by voting for correspondingly pledged electors.

And here’s where the Liberals want to corrupt the process.
The Electoral College is there to prevent the most populace states for running roughshod over the smaller states. Everyone gets a proportional vote.
But the liberals have been pissed that they lost to George W Bush in 2000 in the Electoral College ever since.
Not for any other reason that pure partisanship.
And now they want to subvert it, for pure partisanship. Along with other tactics to cheat to win.
It’s called euphemistically, The National Popular Vote Bill.
And it has begun in liberal states.
Under the proposed law, all of the state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally.
Supporters are waging a state-by-state campaign to try to get such bills enacted. Once states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (or 270 of 538) have enacted the laws, the candidate winning the most votes nationally would be assured a majority of the Electoral College votes, no matter how the other states vote and how their electoral votes are distributed.
Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, and Washington have already adopted the legislation, according to the National Popular Vote campaign’s website.
It sounds innocent enough, doesn’t it? But that’s just the apple. There is a donkey-shaped snake in this garden.
This effort began innocently enough several years ago when a few law professors were doing what some might say they do best: engaging in mental gymnastics, apparently just for the fun of it. Or maybe as a part of a continuing effort to see who can outdo the other, coming up with imaginative ways to legally do something that was supposed to be illegal. Could they come up with a way to eliminate the Electoral College without actually amending the Constitution?

Remember this isn’t about changing the Constitution. This is about manipulating it.
Keeping the system, but pass laws that gut it and hollow it so it means nothing.
Then you have, Amnesty for 12 million new Democrats.
You have ACORN, busted for voter fraud.
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes made a jaw-dropping announcement to attorneys in Justice’s Voting Rights section. She said she would not support any enforcement of a key section of the federal “Motor Voter” law — Section 8, which requires states to periodically purge their voter rolls of dead people, felons, illegal voters and those who have moved out of state.
You have The New Black Panther Voter Intimidation case that the Dept of Justice refuses to handle.
“We’re not interested in those kind of cases. What do they have to do with helping increase minority access and turnout? We want to increase access to the ballot, not limit it.”
Access for minorities that is…
Last year, Justice abandoned a case it had pursued for three years against Missouri for failing to clean up its rolls. When filed in 2005, one-third of Missouri counties had more registered voters than voting-age residents. What’s more, Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, a Democrat who this year is her party’s candidate for a vacant U.S. Senate seat, contended that her office had no obligation to ensure individual counties were complying with the federal law mandating a cleanup of their voter rolls.
The case made slow but steady progress through the courts for more than three years, amid little or no evidence of progress in cleaning up Missouri’s voter rolls. Despite this, Obama Justice saw fit to dismiss the case in March 2009. Curiously, only a month earlier, Ms. Carnahan had announced her Senate candidacy. Missouri has a long and documented history of voter fraud in Democratic-leaning cities such as St. Louis and Kansas City. Ms. Carnahan may now stand to benefit from voter fraud facilitated by the improperly kept voter rolls that she herself allowed to continue. (WSJ)

So you have a Dept of Justice that will go after Arizona for Illegal immigration enforcement but will ignore voter fraud and voter intimidation.
You have a Justice Department that isn’t interested in the rule of law, but the rule of ideology.
You have the Propaganda of the Liberal Media that has now been absolutely been proven to be manipulating the facts for their own agenda.
The SEIU thugs (who beat up a Tea Party activist last year and got away with it, by the way)
Class Warfare rhetoric.
Race Wars (getting minorities to vote against “crackers”– aka Republicans)
“You’re a Racist” if you disagree.
The DISCLOSE Act that would restrict corporations (aka non-liberals mostly) and favor Union speech again.
And you have hundreds of thousands of  “illegal voters” out there that you refuse to clean off the books (i.e. the deceased, or felons, etc).
Pack the courts with activist Judges and liberal ideologues.
And you have the makings of a banana republic farce where you hold an election just to make it look like it matters but in point of fact you’ve rigged the outcome.
That would work for the progressive liberal superiority complex now wouldn’t it.
It’s “fair”. :)
They win every time. That’s “democratic” :)
Five states have so far endorsed this ill-advised scheme to skirt the Constitution: Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey and Washington (61 electoral votes). The latest fronts in this battle are Massachusetts (12 electoral votes) and New York (31 electoral votes). The Massachusetts House and New York Senate have both approved the bills, so approval by the Massachusetts Senate and New York Assembly would send the measure to the states’ respective governors. Both states could act at any time. Three other state legislatures have approved NPV, although the bills were vetoed: California, Rhode Island, and Vermont (62 electoral votes). The Rhode Island House later rejected the measure. These latter states remain important because of a lawsuit that could be filed in an attempt to overturn the vetoes.
If each of these states is included, NPV could have as many as 166 electoral votes in favor of its scheme. It needs 270 to essentially eliminate the Electoral College. NPV is close to success, yet because of the manner in which it is seeking change, the vast majority of the country remains completely unaware that the presidential election system is so close to such radical change.

So you secretly line up your forces.
That’s very “democratic” isn’t it :)
The country can’t conduct one coherent national election when there are 51 different sets of state and local election codes in place. Today, the variance among state election laws is irrelevant because each state (plus D.C.) need accomplish nothing more than elect its own slate of electors. In essence, Americans conduct 51 different elections and expect 51 different sets of results. NPV, by contrast, expects to smash these 51 sets of laws into one completely national result. It won’t work. Instead, the resulting chaos will make Florida 2000 look like a picnic. (campaignfreedom.com)

So I guess the federal government would have to come and have “supremacy” in order to have an orderly election process and ensure it was “fair” for all. :)
And it would bring “order” to the “chaos”…
Sssssssssssssssssssssss 

The Philadelphia 86ers

In the final days of the Bush administration, three Black Panthers —  Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson — were charged in a civil complaint with violating the Voter Rights Act in November 2008 by using coercion, threats and intimidation at a Philadelphia polling station — with Shabazz brandishing what prosecutors called a deadly weapon.

Imagine, multiple witness, including a Well-Respected Democrat Civil Rights Activist hearing “Now you know what it will be like to be ruled by a black man, Cracker!”
Cracker, for the uninitiated is a racial slur for white people. But since it’s is not politically incorrect no one actually cares that it’s a racial slur.
Imagine, a tall Black man with a knight stick and his buddies outside a Philadelphia polling place.
Imagine, They called people “white devils”. They menaced, they tapped their baton. They tried to stop people from entering the polls.
And it is all on tape!!
But since the Ministry of Truth and the Liberal Spin machine will dismiss it as a “republican” ploy enter Lifelong Democrat, and Civil Rights Advocate Bartle Bull.
He’s a long time Robert F. Kennedy civil rights activist, worked in Mississippi in the ’60s. He said it was the worst case of voter intimidation he has ever seen in his 40 years of practicing civil rights laws.
He was There.
He also alleges that ACORN registered at least 400,000 people in the last election that were fraudulent also.
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/america-live/index.html#/v/4267253/civil-rights-attorney-on-accusations-vs-doj/?playlist_id=87651
So you have voter fraud and voter intimidation allegations from a Diehard Liberal Democrat!
“But I do know already that the President of the United States has violated his oath of office to enforce the laws of the United States. Because he is not enforcing the Voting Rights Act. Which he swore to do.’ – Bartle Bull.
Text of the Interview with Former DOJ Attorney: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,595683,00.html
Excerpts:
KELLY (FOX): Ok, so you bring the case against these four defendants. The two guys we see on camera, the party and the head of the party. And what happens next?
J Christian ADAMS (Former DOJ): Well you cruise along. The defendants didn’t even appear, they didn’t even answer, the just ignored the charges.
KELLY: They didn’t bother to defend it in any way?
ADAMS: No, it’s like ignoring a speeding ticket. They just blew it off. They didn’t show up for court, they didn’t file any papers, they didn’t do anything.
KELLY: So you get something that’s called a default judgment, meaning a judgment because they didn’t bother to defend it and the judge says to you at the Department of Justice, OK, write up an order and tell me whether you want to make this final essentially.
ADAMS: Yeah, the court had already found and entered the fault against the defendants. It was done. All we had to do is tell the judge what we wanted for punishment.
KELLY: OK, but instead of doing that, something changed at the Department of Justice. What happened?
ADAMS: Well, the case was dismissed on May 15. All the charges were dropped against three of the defendants and the final order against one of the defendants was a timid restraint.
KELLY: So, the only person who wound up facing any punishment was the guy with the baton. And instead of having a permanent injunction, which is what you guys wanted, never let this guy near a polling station to do this, to do this kind of thing again, he got what?
ADAMS: He’s stopped from appearing at the polls with a weapon only in the city of Philadelphia and only for a couple more years.
KELLY: And the other three defendants?
ADAMS: Nothing. They’re dismissed from the case completely.
KELLY: Ok, so what happened at the Department of Justice to get you to the point where you literally snatched defeat from the jaws of victory?
KELLY: So, but what was the reason? That’s what I’m trying to get at. You, the trial attorneys, the career lawyers at DOJ said we have a victory. We think this case has merit. And you were told what?
ADAMS: Dismiss the case. That the facts and the law don’t support this. I can’t explain it.
KELLY: What was really going on?
ADAMS: Well, I mean, there is a pervasive hostility to bringing these sorts of civil rights cases. I’ve worked on other ones at the Justice Department. I’ve worked on cases in Mississippi. I’ve represented both black victims of racial discrimination and Hispanic victims and in this case a white victim of racial discrimination. There is a pervasive hostility within the civil rights division at the Justice Department toward these sorts of cases.
KELLY: Do you believe that the DOJ has a policy now of not pursuing cases if the defendant is black and the victim is white?
ADAM: Well, particularly in voting. In voting that will be the case over the next few years, there’s no doubt about it.
KELLY: There isn’t?
ADAM: None, I mean, instructions were, if you had all the attorneys that worked on this case I am quite sure that they would say the exact same thing. And that other attorneys gave instructions that the voting section would not be pursuing these sorts of cases.
Response: The department “is committed to comprehensive and vigorous enforcement of both the civil and criminal provisions of federal law that prohibit voter intimidation. We continue to work with voters, communities, and local law enforcement to ensure that every American can vote free from intimidation, coercion or threats,” Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler Schmaler said.
There’s that word again, “comprehensive”. And could you be a little more political and platitude-y in your response please.
But Adams told Fox News that the department’s decision to dismiss the case reeked of racial politics and corruption.
“I don’t think the department or the fine people who work there are corrupt, but in this particular instance, to abandon law-abiding citizens and abet wrongdoers constitutes corruption,” he said.
Adams said he quit last month after the department ordered attorneys to ignore a subpoena from the commission.
“After being ordered not to comply with the lawful subpoena, after hearing the lies that are being said about the case, after the corruption that we had witnessed in the case, I just said that’s it, that I resign and now I’m no longer there,” he said.
Adams also said the department has been caught lying about the case, including the assertion that the decision to dismiss the charges was made only by Loretta King, acting head of the civil rights division, and Steve Rosenbaum, an attorney with the division.
Citing a Washington Times article, Adams said Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli, the No. 3 official in the department, was responsible for the decision. He also said a written response from the department to the commission revealed that Attorney General Eric Holder was also briefed on the case.
“The initial statements of the department are being proved in hindsight to be false,” he said.
When asked whether Holder signed off on the decision to dismiss the case, Adams said, “I can’t answer that. We were just doing our job. We didn’t even know these things. We thought we had a good case. We thought it’s all going to be over with soon and we’re going to win. And then it wasn’t.”
But Adams noted that a former Justice Department official testified to the commission that it would be “unheard of” for a decision like this to be made without the attorney general’s blessing.
Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez provided false testimony in May to the United States Commission on Civil Rights, which is investigating the department’s decision to drop charges against three members of the radical group in a case that the government won.
Perez told the commission that the facts and the law didn’t support the case against the group.
“I know about the truth…and I know what the truth is and I know to say the facts and law don’t support the Black Panther case is not true,” Adams said, adding that Perez ignored his warnings not to provide false testimony.
“We made it very clear that continuing to say that the facts and the law don’t support this case would not be consistent with the truth,” he said.
Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler called Adams’ allegations “baseless.”
So you catch several Blank Panther radicals brandishing weapons and yelling racial epithets and intimidating people at the polls.
You win the case. It’s a Slam Dunk. It’s all on Tape. You have multiple credible witnesses.
Then your new boss says drop it.
Why?
Because,“the facts and law do not support  the case”, they say.
It’s ON TAPE! Slapping you in the face with a 2X4!
So what they are are the power now (Democrats) and they decided what laws are to be enforced and when.
And this was not going to be enforced.
Racism requires the perpetrator to be in a position of power. Obama comes from a “church” of black liberation theology (Rev. Wright). Holder is no newcomer to controversy and the politics of race. Obama holds the office of President of the United States and Eric Holder holds the office of Attorney General of the United States.
Who has the power?
We are from the government and we are here to serve you.
TO SERVE MAN.
“It’s a Cook Book! It’s A Cook Book!”