Desperation: Obama Surrogate JEW Calls to Make Voting Mandatory

[General of Darkness]

My GOD how far we've falling. Initially in this REPUBLIC only male white land owners were allowed to vote because they had a vested interest in the outcome. Now EVERYONE, everyone without any vested interest can vote in their interest.

Fucking jews.

Desperation: Obama Surrogate Calls to Make Voting Mandatory http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Government/2012/06/21/Screen%20Shot%2020120621%20at%2021000%20PM.png
159
2
156


Email Article
Print Article Send a Tip (http://www.breitbart.com/System/Send%20A%20Tip?page=%2fBig-Government%2f2012%2f06%2f21%2fDesperation-Obama-Surrogate-Calls-To-Make-Voting-Mandatory)


by Ben Shapiro (http://www.breitbart.com/Columnists/Ben-Shapiro) 21 Jun 2012, 2:08 PM PDT 147 (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/21/Desperation-Obama-Surrogate-Calls-To-Make-Voting-Mandatory#disqus_thread) post a comment (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/21/Desperation-Obama-Surrogate-Calls-To-Make-Voting-Mandatory#comments)
Peter Orszag, former head of the Obama Office of Management and Budget, is desperate. With even Roll Call recognizing (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/21/Roll-call-obama-underdog) that President Obama is fighting an uphill battle for re-election, Orszag is floating a trial balloon: mandatory voting. His call for forced voting comes (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-19/voting-should-be-mandatory.html) in an op/ed for Bloomberg News:

The U.S. prides itself as the beacon of democracy, but it’s very likely no U.S. president has ever been elected by a majority of American adults.


It’s our own fault -- because voter participation rates are running below (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0397.pdf) 60 percent, a candidate would have to win 85 percent or more of the vote to be elected by a majority.



Compulsory voting, as exists in Australia and more than two dozen other countries, would fix that problem. As William Galston of the Brookings Institution (http://topics.bloomberg.com/brookings-institution/) argues (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/opinion/sunday/telling-americans-to-vote-or-else.html?pagewanted=all), “Jury duty is mandatory; why not voting?”





During the 2008 election cycle, voter participation was approximately 64 percent; in 2004, it was about the same. Orszag wants that number up. Why?

Beyond simply raising participation, compulsory voting could alter the role of money in elections. Turn-out-the-vote efforts, often bankrolled by big-money groups, would become largely irrelevant. Negative advertising could be less effective, because a central aim of such ads is to discourage participation in the opponent’s camp.




It is no coincidence that Orszag is calling for mandatory voting on this basis at the same time that the Obama administration pushes (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/20/Obama-imperial-presidency) against Citizens United, attempting to bridge the money gap Obama now faces against Mitt Romney. It is also no coincidence that Obama wants mandatory voting at this point in time – it is widely accepted that mandatory voting would raise participation rates in heavily Democrat-leaning populations, particularly minorities.




The irony, of course, is that the Democrats seem fine with forcing people to the polls, but object strenuously to people showing ID at the polls when they show up voluntarily. Forcing people to vote seems significantly more burdensome than asking them to show identification. But one measure prevents voter fraud, while one promotes liberal constituencies stuffing the ballot box. So that explains that.




The Obama campaign must be desperate if they’re calling for this sort of action. Such a policy would be massively unpopular with the American people – but apparently Obama is willing to risk that so long as he can get more of his friends to the polls. Even if he has to force his friends.

[palani]

By submitting a ballot you agree to go along with the will of the majority. It is called "consent".

[General of Darkness]

By submitting a ballot you agree to go along with the will of the majority. It is called "consent".

Right but think about the ironic part of your statement. By NOT voting, you're submitting to the majority and I'd say that's even more of an issue of "consent".

The problem with this country is that more people vote that shouldn't and the only people that you can vote for are bought and paid for, it's never a win win, it's always lose lose, or the lesser or two evils.

[palani]

Right but think about the ironic part of your statement. By NOT voting, you're submitting to the majority and I'd say that's even more of an issue of "consent". Not at all. Ignorance of a foreign law is ignorance of a fact. Ignorance of fact is never criminal. By making declarations and engaging in adhesion contracts you become domestic and then you really have to worry about what the majority does because you have made yourself a subject.


The problem with this country is that more people vote that shouldn't and the only people that you can vote for are bought and paid for, it's never a win win, it's always lose lose, or the lesser or two evils.
People think they vote to people put into office. Instead they merely make it possible for the successful candidate to assume office in a de facto manner. Whether he becomes de jure or not depends upon his taking an oath and submitting a bond. If you vote you don't have to worry about de facto vs de jure because the oath is NEVER given to any of the voters. The oath is given to people who don't participate and who want to be able to prosecute trespasses. People who vote can't sue. They agreed.

In a republic anyone can step into an office they see is vacant. In my case I sensed that there was nobody that any of these politicians oaths were given to so I decided to fill that office. When Steve (Obama) took office I gave him a legal notice telling him I expected officials in my government to send me their oath and bond. I never heard from Steve so he has little protection should he decide to perform a trespass.

Who knows? Maybe that is why I haven't heard much from government.

[PlatinumBlonde]

Didn't they do 'mandatory' voting in the Soviet Union?

[chad]

Didn't they do 'mandatory' voting in the Soviet Union?

yep. and after mandatory voting, you get mandatory "you better vote for the right person."

[PlatinumBlonde]

yep. and after mandatory voting, you get mandatory "you better vote for the right person."


I would say this shows, unequivically that Barry has become profoundly dangerous..

[palani]

In Iowa the government wants felons to jump thru hoops to get the citizenship franchise back rather than making it automatic. A felon would have to apply (aka plead, beg) to get back what he had before becoming a criminal. Somewhere in this process consent is granted but actually the felon has more rights with respect to government than the clueless sap who casts a ballot.


“But if you can’t vote,” he said, “you are nobody.”


http://www.desmoinesregister.com/viewart/20120625/NEWS/306250022/Vote-restoration-hard-Iowa-felons


Vote restoration hard for Iowa felons

IOWA CITY, IA. — Republican Gov. Terry Branstad has made Iowa one of the most difficult states in the nation for felons to vote, a review by the Associated Press shows.

On the day he took office, Branstad signed an order reversing a six-year policy started under Democrat Tom Vilsack in which felons automatically regained their voting rights once they were discharged from state supervision. The move flew in the face of a nationwide trend to make voting easier for felons, making Iowa one of four states where felons must apply to the governor to have voting rights restored. Branstad’s new process requires applicants to submit a credit report, a provision critics call inappropriate and unique among states.

Since then, 8,000 felons in Iowa have finished their prison sentences or been released from community supervision, but fewer than a dozen have successfully navigated the process of applying to get their citizenship rights back, according to public records obtained by the AP. Branstad’s office has denied a handful of others because of incomplete paperwork or unpaid court costs.

“Wow — that seems pretty low,” said Rita Bettis, lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, which was posting a how-to guide online Sunday to help felons through a process that has confused some seasoned elections officials.

Bettis said felons struggling to re-enter society may be less interested in voting than the general population because they have other concerns, but making it easier for them to do so is good public policy.

Henry Straight, who wants to serve on the town council in the tiny western Iowa community of Arthur, is among those whose paperwork wasn’t complete. Straight can’t vote or hold office because as a teenager in Wisconsin in the 1980s, he was convicted of stealing a pop machine and fleeing while on bond.

Straight spent a year on the effort and hired a lawyer for $500 to help. Yet he was notified by the governor’s office last month that he hadn’t submitted a full credit report, only a summary, or documentation showing he had paid off decades-old court costs.

“They make the process just about impossible,” said Straight, 40, a truck driver. “I hired a lawyer to navigate it for me and I still got rejected. Isn’t that amazing?”

Iowa’s process also includes a 31-question application that asks for information such as the address of the judge who handled the conviction. Felons also must supply a criminal history report, which takes weeks and costs $15. Then the review can take up to six months.

Critics say the process is too onerous and that allowing felons to vote helps them reintegrate into society.

They say Iowa’s process disenfranchises the poor, who don’t have money to pay off debts, and blacks, who make up a disproportionate number of felons. They also point out that requiring a credit report is likely scaring off felons with financial problems.

“Iowa is in a dwindling minority of extremely restrictive states,” said Marc Mauer, executive director of the Sentencing Project, a national group that advocates for policies to make it easier for felons to vote. For felons, Branstad is “making your right to vote contingent on your financial abilities.”

The trend in the U.S. since 1996 has been to expand felon voting rights and make it easier to have them restored, according to a report from the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Kentucky, Florida and Virginia are the other states that require felons to apply to the governor, but they don’t require a credit report. Thirty-eight states allow most felons to automatically regain their voting rights once they complete their sentences, according to the report. Maine and Vermont never take away voting rights. Others require felons to wait a certain amount of time before becoming eligible.

Branstad spokesman Tim Albrecht said Iowa’s policy helps ensure felons pay restitution to victims and that he expected more to apply over time. He said the credit report helps officials verify those debts are paid. He noted the application is two pages long and available online with a “frequently asked questions” document.

Still, some felons have given up. Henry Straight’s cousin, Richard Straight, 65, said he has struggled with addiction to drugs and crime. He said he would like to vote in the upcoming presidential election, but it’s not worth the fight.

“I’ve only got a few years left of living. I might as well kick back and relax and live my life instead of fighting the system like that,” he said.

Iowa had long been one of the most restrictive states for felons’ voting rights. When Branstad served as governor from 1983 to 1999, he has said he restored thousands of felons’ rights through a similar application process.

Branstad’s successor, Vilsack, continued that policy until his 2005 executive order that automatically restored voting rights for felons once they left prison or parole. Republicans, including Branstad, criticized the move as politically motivated. Up to 100,000 felons had their rights restored under the policy, which was in effect until after Branstad won election to a fifth term in November 2010.

The state’s new top elections official, Republican Secretary of State Matt Schultz, urged Branstad to reinstate the application process to “send a message to Iowa’s voters that their voting privilege is sacred and will not be compromised.”

In rescinding Vilsack’s policy, Branstad said applying for citizenship rights “is an important and necessary aspect of an offender’s process of reintegration.”

Henry Straight said he would try to obtain the missing documentation and resubmit his application.

Ironically, he said he would like to be able to vote for Branstad, calling the governor a proven leader.

“But if you can’t vote,” he said, “you are nobody.”

[Awoke]

Land of the free, unless you don't vote.

[iOWNme]

When an Empire enfranchises all the slaves you only get 1 outcome: Death to every Empire in history.


Oh gee, look what i found. This guy Peter Orszag wouldnt belong to a certain tribe would he?

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Peter_Orszag.html

[Twisted Titan]

In Iowa the government wants felons to jump thru hoops to get the citizenship franchise back rather than making it automatic. A felon would have to apply (aka plead, beg) to get back what he had before becoming a criminal. Somewhere in this process consent is granted but actually the felon has more rights with respect to government than the clueless sap who casts a ballot.


“But if you can’t vote,” he said, “you are nobody.”


http://www.desmoinesregister.com/viewart/20120625/NEWS/306250022/Vote-restoration-hard-Iowa-felons


Its funny that whole piece would lead you believe once your a convict you have somehow been expelled from the matrix.....when in reality this restoration voting boondoggle just sucks you further into it