POLITICS AND ELECTIONS: THE SAME OLD POLITICAL GAME FOR GEORGIA

POLITICS AND ELECTIONS: THE SAME OLD POLITICAL GAME

Already, two groups have come out (in the second week of July) against Karen Handel in her bid to become the next Governor of Georgia. Call it “the good ol’boy game” against women candidates, or the usual backstabbing methods of a woman candidate’s opponents, it is still just the same old political game as played in Georgia every election year. So, first let’s look deep into the two groups who are already attacking Karen Handel, as of July 8, 2010:
A. Defenders of Democracy: Founded around 2004, this “influential” group’s only outrage against Karen Handel (which actually goes back to Cathryn Cox) has been related to the electronic voting equipment used in Georgia. Their claim is that the use of electronic equipment delegitimizes the right that elections be transparent and accountable to the people. But their reasoning is faulty. The ability to oversee the vote tallies at the end of the voting day, including absentee electronic ballots, are just as open to the public as written ballots were beforehand. Having been a vote proctor using the paper method and now having seen how the electronic method is utilized, there is only one way to make the “Defenders of Democracy” satisfied that votes are tallied correctly: That is by having someone look over each citizen’s shoulder as they cast a vote and then immediately ensuring that the electronic counter has tallied the vote correctly by printing out an immediate vote tally after each vote is cast. As usual, those who think they live in a democracy (our form of government is a Republic, so that we can avoid anarchy as is eventually found in a democracy) believe they always have the best answer for the American citizen. Instead, they appear to want absolute control over a citizen’s right to vote in privacy. I propose that any “grievance” that they have against any candidate, including Karen Handel, is for their own purposes and not necessarily for the republican form of government which we have in Georgia.
Now, I am neither for or against electronic voting equipment. I see benefits in using the current system and I see benefits in using the older paper ballots. But, based on what I read on the website for Defenders of Democracy (http://207.210.65.64/drupal/node/18), their emphasis is not necessarily on what is best for Georgia but what is best on maintaining control and power in Georgia.
B. VoterGA: Founded by Garland Favorito, this group and Mr. Favorito have the same basic problems with the electronic voting process and the same basic solutions as the socialist-style manifesto of Defenders of Democracy, as referred to previously. Mr. Favorito’s arguments against Ms. Handel’s performance regarding her efforts to ensure a fair and verifiable electronic voting system are based on statements from such groups as the Free Congress Foundation (http://www.politicalamazon.com/fcf.html#pasztor) a far-right organization (beginning to see a trend here?), misquoting the reports of the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Testing) as related to their role in evaluating the electronic ballot method (http://www.nist.gov/itl/vote/) , along with two other incidents in Lowndes and Douglas County which involved operator error and were reconciled, even though Mr. Favorito would have one believe that conspiracies abound in these cases. Mr. Favorito filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of State’s office regarding the eligibility of the electronic voting process as a method that could be declared unconstitutional, per Mr. Favorito.
The Georgia State Supreme Court determined in September, 2009 that all allegations of potential fraud, claims of violations of the state and federal Constitutions, and violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States were without grounds and were dismissed as unfounded, with arguments of support from the Supreme Court of Georgia (http://www.voterga.org/more/index.cfm?Fuseaction=more_15725 and click on Georgia Supreme Court ruling under the Lawsuit tab). The next step, if Mr. Favorito truly believes in what he is adamantly arguing against, is to file this case with SCOTUS. However, this has not happened since last September. The reason can be found when one investigates who Garland Favorito has donated campaign contributions to since 1998, as regards to candidates for Georgia offices. One example to start from would be http://www.city-data.com/elec2/98/elec-NORCROSS-GA-98.html . Further investigations will show that Mr. Favorito has donated funds to the “Good OL’ Boy” network of Georgia politicians. You know; the same group of elected professional politicians who have failed Georgian citizens in helping the state develop mechanisms that would lower our taxes, trim down on our state government’s overbudget spending habits, and reduce our property taxes, just for starters.

25 YEARS AGO

(DEDICATED TO MY SON)

Twenty-five years ago, I held my son in my arms.
I promised him my love and my protection.
He was our baby then.
He passed the baby stage a long time ago.

When he was five, we sent him to Pre-K,
Followed by elementary school.
He struggled and he triumphed thru school,
As so many children did and have always done.
But he learned and absorbed knowledge.
He was no longer a child.

We watched him grow from a child into a man.
I coached him on the philosophies of baseball and the choices you make,
Mainly that if you don’t enjoy what you are doing,
Then stop doing it and pursue that which makes you happy.
In what was to be his final year in Little League, I became
So physically sick and unable to continue coaching that I was unable
To help him thru the trials and tribulations of the game.
I believe he gave baseball up, for that period of time, to help
His father thru some very physical and emotional neurological pain.
Yet my son, with his mother, stood by my side and was there till
My body and My God decided I and my family had gone thru enough.
My son endured a lot for the sake of his father.
Though he was still young, He was no longer a child.
 
I have watched my son grow thru the influential years
As a teenager.
I have seen him struggle with life’s challenges
During that period.
And I tried to be there for him.
Like I did with his older sister,
I told him of the mistakes I had made
As a young man, what they cost me in years of life
And how I wanted him to learn from my mistakes.
He made choices regarding lifestyles and friendships
That were, I feel, tough for him to make.
Apparently, my lessons I shared with him paid off.
My son grew from a non-typical teenager to a Man.

I damaged my family’s relationship many years ago
When I found myself taking my wife’s place in my heart
For granted; a mistake that had been ongoing for years.
Yet I never accepted it as the truth; I was in denial.
This led to events which led to our mutual divorce.
My son endured the pain of my mistakes
Which increased the pain within my heart.
Yet my son was a Man through it all.

It is said that Time heals all wounds.
For my wife and best friend, that has become true.
We have been back together for a long time now by working together
And trusting one another again, with a better relationship
Than before.
I pray to God every night that the pain and wounds
My son endured have truly healed between he and I.
 
My son was a baby, soon to be a young man.
Now my son is a Man, facing life’s challenges
And meeting those challenges head-on.
Let it be known that I, My Son’s father, will always
Be there to give him my love, my support and my soul
No matter what trials and tribulations he faces.
For I am his father and I will always Love my Son Unconditionally
For Time Eternal.

BHO'S FINAL WAR DECLARATION AGAINST THE SOUTH

So, the BHO administrations and the Justice Department made it official today in suing Arizona over SB 1070, on Constitutional justifications. Now there is irony at its extreme: BHO and the Justice Department trying to use the Constitution to their favor (what a farce). One main argument is based on the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) where all federal laws are the supreme Law of the Land, and all state laws are binding to such federal laws. Well, BHO, you just opened your mouth and stuck your foot into it. Chief Justice John Marshall, in 1819, with the Marbury vs. Madison case, interpreted the clause to mean that the states may not interfere with the functioning of the federal government and that federal law prevails over an inconsistent state law. In the case of Arizona and SB 1070, this state law does not interfere with the functioning of the federal government (which includes protecting our borders), but instead assists the federal statute by implementing the same rules as the federal statute with punishment clauses that are less stringent than the federal statute. Hence, Arizona’s SB 1070 is not interfering with the functions of the federal government (which is required by the Constitution to adhere to any federal statute); it is consistent with the federal statute. As for trying to use Marshall’s statement that federal law prevails over an inconsistent state law, there is not justification from BHO’s Justice Department that SB 1070 is an inconsistent state law when it mirrors the federal statute.
Once again, BHO is proving his arrogance towards the true Law of the Land and will pervert it to meet his ultimate agenda: the End of the Republic and the implementation of all of his Socialist programs. On top of this, by following thru on this federal lawsuit against Arizona’s SB 1070, he is outwardly declaring War on the South. With his “restriction of access” to over a thousand acres of federal land in the Sonoran desert and Buenos Aires National Forest (which has allowed the Mexican drug and illegal immigrant cartels to set up “shop” in these areas), with his completely inadequate response to the greatest environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico (and the federal administration’s proven collusion with BP in controlling/limiting the type of efforts taken to clean up and stop the oil spill), and now his official lawsuit against a Southwestern state law that mirrors the federal statute, President Obama has openly declared his disdain for the Southern portion of the USA. If you don’t agree, prove me wrong. I’m all ears and open for any other interpretation.

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION UNPAID FOR

HR 5618, Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 2010, was passed by the House on 07/01/10. A previous vote was taken on 6/29/10 but did not achieve the required 2/3 majority vote to pass onto the Senate. However, the House vote on July 01 only required a simple majority. Interesting how the same bill, with no amendments can be passed in Congress under a different set of majority rules, than when it was voted on the first time under more stringent majority rules.
The major contention as to why fiscal conservatives from both parties were voting against HR 5618 was due to how this bill was going to be paid for. Under this resolution, the federal government will cover each states' cost by 100%. The question for fiscal conservatives was where were the funds to cover this cost coming from. This bill, which extends unemployment compensation till April, 2011 for those whose compensation ended several months ago, is to be funded by the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008 which, according to the latest CBO analysis report, is no longer fully funded. This bill states that it is subject to the "pay as you go" principle, but the questions still remains unanswered: Where are the funds to pay for this bill? Fiscal conservatives from both parties were lobbying for delegating funds from the unspent portion of last year's budget stimulus to pay for the compensation claims to come. However, the liberal "spend as you go" Socialists in Congress would not consider this option and passed this bill which is forecast to cost over $24 Billion by 2011, per the CBO estimate on 6/28/10.
Now this editorial is not intended to not extend a helping hand to the unemployed who are still looking for work since being layed off or released from work a minimum of three months ago. This editorial is directed at the typical approach by the House to spend tax revenues and supplement with newly printed money, as opposed to using over $200 billion in unused stimulus funds to pay for the unemployment compensation extension.
In addition, in both votes, 29 RINOs (who have voted irresponsibly on fiscal legislation, as researched in the past 24 months) voted for this bill. One RINO (Anh Caro, LA-2) recorded a "NO VOTE" on June 29th, then voted for the bill on 07/01/10. For sake of space, the reader can research HR 5618 on govtrack.us/congress to see the vote tally and the names of the RINOs who voted for this legislation on both occassions. You will see the typical RINOs from Florida [GUS BILIRAKIS (9),LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (21),MARIO DIAZ-BALART (25),
BILL POSEY(15),ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN (18)and BILL YOUNG (10)] and those from Pennsylvania [CHARLES DENT (15),JIM GERLACH (6),TIM MURPHY (18), and
TODD PLATTS (19)]. You will find some interesting names with the remainder of RINOs who voted Aye for HR 5618.

MARXISM: DEAD OR ALIVE??

I was recently in a quick discussion with another individual who stated that he understood that the Marxist philosophy had failed and anyone who wanted to belong to this failed philosophy must be delusional. I agree with the belief that anyone who wants to follow the Marxist philosophy must be delusional. But, despite the fall of the eventual Communist empire of the USSR, Marxism did not fail. WE, the People see it every day. Karl Marx established his philosophy on the belief that Socialism will destroy capitalism and lead to a pure state of communism. For the last 100 years, the socialist movement has been slowly creeping in and eroding our society and our different levels of government. We've especially seen an acceleration of socialist views in the past 18 months. But not before we saw it creep into our society (denial of God's Law as the principle to the Constitution, court systems interpreting the "separation of church and state" well outside of it's intentions as designed by our founding fathers, efforts to remove any references to God in our official documents and history books, etc.) and yet We, the People stood by on many occasions and let socialistic changes to our society and our government occur without standing up as one voice and saying "NOT ON MY WATCH!!"
Today, We the People are standing steadfast and being heard across our Republic as we work to pull out socialism from our society, our government and our livelihood. Just as the Socialist movement took decades of slow inception, We the People have years of hard work to RESTORE OUR REPUBLIC, including bringing the free market economy back to it's full potential.
But back to the original conversation, from which I am still waiting for some answers to some very important questions. Karl Marx is dead but his vision of socialism still lives on and is thriving nationwide and worldwide. So I'll ask to all who read this, just as I asked the individual in the original discussion: What are you going to do to stop this vibrant (not failed) philosophy? Or are you going to be in denial? We the People throughout this Republic have had a choice to make. And it better be the right one for our children and future generations. If you have not made your choice by now, you better make it fast!!

DEFENDING OUR COUNTRY: THE PRESIDENT'S DUTY

DEFENDING OUR COUNTRY: THE PRESIDENT’S DUTY

Article II, Section I of The Constitution of the United States: The Presidential Oath of Affirmation states “I do solemly swear(or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Any federal law that has justly been approved and entered into the United States Code becomes part of the Law of the Land, the Constitution. Therefore, the protection of our country, in any terms from protecting our borders to protecting our environment, is a direct obligation of the President of the United States. Question: When is the President of the United States of America guilty of violating the Law of the Land? Answer: when he willfully violates the Oath of Affirmation.
The current President, Barack Hussein Obama (heretofore to be referred to as BHO) has willfully violated his oath on many occasions in just the first 17 months of his ongoing term. For the sake of argument, this evaluation will focus on specific events.
BHO, as the leader of his administration, has violated 18 USC 600, which states “Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or
special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.” In addition, BHO has violated 18 USC 595, which states (in part) “Whoever, being a person employed in any administrative position by the United States…uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.” These violations of federal law occurred on two “recent’ occasions: during the attempt by representatives of the BHO administration, directly (as in the deputy chief of staff Jim Messina) to coerce Andrew Romanoff to back out of his candidacy as Democratic nominee for Senator of Colorado by offering three federal administrative positions and indirectly (as in attempt by former President Clinton by request of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel) in offering a “high level, non-paying position”, as stated by White House press release, to Rep. Joseph Sestak in lieu of his backing out of his candidacy as Democratic nominee for Senate in Pennsylvania. WHERE IS THE LEGAL OUTRAGE AND JUDICIAL INVESTIGATIONS INTO THESE ADMITTED ACTIVITIES?
BHO openly violated Article II, Section 2 by appointing “czars”/advisors who are openly involved in policy making but were not subjected to consent by the Senate. The childish argument that “this has been an ongoing practice” is not justification for violating the Law of the Land. It is time for this practice to be outlawed by the judicial system and condemned by the Senate. WHERE IS THE LEGAL AND LEGISLATIVE OUTRAGE AND JUDICIAL INVESTIGATIONS INTO THESE ADMITTED ACTIVITIES?

For sake of argument, I will submit the following judicial interpretation of Executive Orders: Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. The President's source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the "executive Power." Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." To implement or execute the laws of the land, Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive Branch agencies and departments, often in the form of Executive Orders.
Executive Orders allow the President to make major decisions, even law, without the consent of Congress, which is in contrast to the logic of the Constitution’s “checks and balances” philosophy. On many occasions, Congress have passed laws without any direct method of how to implement them. Basically, these leaves any federal agencies affected by such law with the decision as to how to implement the law. The President is overall in charge of all federal agencies during his or her term(s). This scenario allows for wide open interpretation, which Presidents have followed thru by providing specific details via Executive Orders. This is the case for Jones Act of 1920. One problem in implementing this law, which requires intercoastal shipping of goods in U.S. maritime vessels, deals with the cost incurred by U.S. maritime in moving overseas cargo incoming to the U.S. from foreign to U.S. vessels.
When Denmark offered the use of their numerous scrubbers in the Gulf of Mexico immediately after the Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster, BHO refused to initiate an executive order to temporarily exclude the requirements the Jones Act, which ultimately resulted in the widespread oil slick, along with the crude oil’s inwater separation that has created plumes underwater. This is a flagrant action by BHO to neglect his duty to protect our shores and territorial waters. A future post will also show how BHO has violated the Jones Act by allowing foreign-flagged ships to engage in commerce in American sea lanes. WHERE IS THE REAL OUTRAGE FROM THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AND FROM THE LEGISLATIVE BODY??

One of the major duties of the President of the United States of America encompasses protecting our country (and therefore our borders) from enemies, foreign and domestic. However, BHO has openly shown his neglect to protect our southern border from illegal immigration. The only actions that BHO has taken are providing personnel to help in an administrative fashion, while the illegal immigration rate continues to increase and brings over violent criminals. What is needed to protect our border is more manpower on the ground controlling the border, along with completion of the border guard fence. However, the BHO administration continues the same actions that were evident in our last administration by refusing to provide the necessary means to stop and turn back any attempts at illegal immigration across our southern border. This has resulted in the passing of Arizona’s immigration law 1070, which will go into effect in July. As a response, the Justice Department announced on June 21, 2010 that a federal lawsuit will be filed against Arizona’s immigration law based on the supremacy clause of the Constitution. What the BHO administration has failed to recognize (or acknowledge) is that Arizona’s state law mirrors federal law Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code. In addition, the treatment and disposition of any illegal immigrants found in Arizona’s immigration law 1070 is to turn the illegal alien over to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency. In contrast, the federal law (Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code) declares an illegal immigrant has committed a federal crime and is punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment up to six months. Repeat offenders are treated under the federal law can incur up to two years in prison. As Governor Brewer (Az) said in response to the impending federal lawsuit, “Bring it.” By not providing protection on our borders from enemies foreign and domestic, BHO has once again violated his Oath of Affirmation. WHERE IS THE LEGISLATIVE OUTRAGE AND JUDICIAL INVESTIGATIONS INTO THIS CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION??
Now the latest regarding border protection and comprehensive immigration reform: Today, June 21, 2010, a video tape of a meeting between Arizona’s Senator Jon Kyl and citizens revealed that recently Senator Kyl was involved in a one-on-one conversation with BHO in the Oval Office. Kyl has reported that BHO stated that he would not support increased border protection because it would take away any leverage from Republicans on Capitol Hill in supporting his comprehensive immigration reform practice. Almost, immediately, a White House press corp designee denied that this was ever said, from which Senator Kyl has reconfirmed what he had previously said. The questions for We, the People are : Who do we believe? Does the remark by BHO reflect his obvious stance as regarding enhancing the protection of our Southern Border? I know what my answers are; what are yours? LET THE OUTRAGE BEGIN!!!

POLITICIANS: STAY OUT OF AMERICA'S GAME!!

America's game has always been filled with controversial calls, amazing plays in the field, awesome pitching, etc., etc., etc. The players, managers and owners who still believe in playing the GAME of baseball, not some event where you get rewarded no matter your status/record(which sounds like Saul Alinsky-type principles, doesn't it); those individuals still want the game to stay as is, no "instant replays", just play the game, kick some dirt on the umpire's feet, get in their face when you think they have made a bad call, and then continue to "play the game".
Baseball does not need politicians to stick their nose in probably the only purest American ideal (baseball) and the real players don't want them getting involved either. The pitcher (Andres Galaragga) who lost out on the perfect game due to the bad call was very professional and courteous on the field, to the point of separating his manager from umpire James Joyce after the manager (Leyland) had his "in the face" moment with the ump (part of baseball lore). The umpire (J. Joyce), considered one of the best in the business and admired by all teams, said he felt his heart fall when he looked up on the scoreboard and saw the replay (he's human and humans make mistakes).
All of this is part of the game. This is nothing new and calls similar to this will be made again in the future. The pitcher (Andres Galaragga)accepted the call and was extremely professional and understanding (to the point of forgiving James Joyce when he realized how bad Joyce felt) because he was raised in the true essence of baseball (my opinion as regarding how he learned the game of baseball). Baseball lore was reflected once again in the Tigers-Indians series when Andres Galaragga came out of the dugout in a following game to hand the lineup card to home plate umpire James Joyce. Like a true gentleman and a real baseball player, Galaragga not only presented the lineup card and handshake from Joyce, but gave him a hug as well, delighting the fans and entering another piece of history into baseball lore.
In the meantime, true baseball fans and players need to call, email and fax the offices of Senator Debbie Stabenow, Congressman John Dingell and Governor Jennifer Granholm to stay out of America's game and tend to their real job; the job of representing We, the People, of which they have done a poor job so far. Ask the residents of Michigan, state of one of the highest unemployment rates, sufferer of mass defections of major industries to other states and countries, etc., etc., etc. You get the point; you know the history of what Michigan has suffered as a state. Call, email, and fax these three to stay out of OUR game and do their real game of representing the needs of Michigan.