The Troops Will Lose Out Again
May 10, 2016 2016 Election, Military
It seems like every election cycle our troops are disenfranchised. We can send them and their equipment around the world but can’t seem to get their ballots to them and back in time to be counted. Every election liberals look for reasons to exclude the vote of the military. There is a reason for this, the military tends to overwhelmingly vote Republican.
They will get screwed again this year:
In a new survey of American military personnel, Donald Trump emerged as active-duty service members’ preference to become the next U.S. president, topping Hillary Clinton by more than a 2-to-1 margin. However, in the latest Military Times election survey, more than one in five troops said they’d rather not vote in November if they have to choose between just those two candidates. Military Times
If surveys showed the military voted overwhelmingly Democrat the left would bend over backwards to ensure the votes were cast and counted. You know, like they do for criminals…
Perhaps the government should work as hard protecting the votes of our military (those who protect the nation and our freedom) as it does to get the vote for felons (and illegals)…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: disenfranchise, felons, liberals, lies, Military, votes
Why Democrats Disenfranchise The Military
Oct 28, 2008 Political
I wrote earlier about how the military (those members serving away from home) gets screwed during the elections when their votes are deliberately not counted. The men and women who defend this country and guarantee all the rest of us the right to vote and ensure we do it safely are routinely left out of the process. Earlier this year Barack Obama said that he would work to gain their trust and support. He wants them to know that he, with little leadership experience and no military experience, will be a better commander in chief than a decorated war hero like John McCain. Just ask Barack and he will tell you he is better qualified to lead our men and women in uniform.
The reason that Democrats work very hard to exclude the military vote is quite simple. Members of the military overwhelmingly support the Republican candidate. This video shows the results of a Military Times poll and the numbers are devastating for Obama.
This might explain why Fairfax Virginia is considering illegally suppressing the military vote. The Fairfax County Registrar (and possibly registrars in other localities) is rejecting Federal Write In Ballots that members of the military used if they were unable to get an absentee ballot. The FWAB is a safety net in case military members and their family members do not get absentee ballots but the registrar is placing restrictions on the ballots that violate federal law.
The ballots have not yet been rejected, they have been segregated while a decision is made. Seems to me that decision will be made when the regular ballots are counted. If the military vote could hurt their candidate then Democrats will fight to keep them from being counted. If the Democrat has a comfortable lead then the military vote will be graciously accepted.
This happens every election cycle and in places like Florida and Pennsylvania it is blatant and wrong. The members of the military deserve to have their votes counted and registrars should not be excluding them for bogus rules especially rules that violate federal law.
One nice thing is that a lot of these military folks are coming home and running for office. Many of them appeal to the people of their communities. With any luck, the Congress will be filled with genuine heroes who actually know how to accomplish something and are not afraid of working for a living.
Just look at Jack Murtha. He might get upset by Army Veteran William Russell.
Now that would be sweet.
Big Dog salute to Covertress.
Tags: absentee, Democrats, disenfranchise, Military, votes
Look For Troops To Be Disenfranchised
Oct 6, 2008 Political
The members of the military are overwhelmingly conservative and have been a solid Republican voting block for a very long time. The Republican party holds values that most in the military find in line with their own and the members cannot stand liberals who always wave the white flag of defeat. Liberals lost Vietnam and if they have their way they will lose Iraq.
I have been told by Obamabots that members of the military are donating more to him than to McCain. I think this is incorrect and it would be hard to demonstrate because Obama has some shady bookkeeping practices. He has a lot of small dollar donors who have given small amounts that add up to 3 or 4 times the legal limit. Obama has also received huge sums of money from people overseas who are NOT American citizens. So when he says that more people in the military have donated to him I would ask, which country’s military?
A recent poll shows that McCain holds a 68%-23% lead over Barack Obama in support of military members. McCain’s support among black members is down and given that many of them are experiencing a chance to vote for a black man, it is not surprising. Not all blacks in the military support Obama and many of those who do seem to be doing so based upon his color. There are those who don’t hold that view:
Army Sgt. 1st Class Derriel D. Collins, who is black, said he was influenced by McCain’s service record, though he acknowledges black friends question his decision.
“I’m not going to give [my vote] to you just because you’re black,” he said. “It doesn’t work like that.” Military Times
The huge amount of support McCain receives means that military votes will once again be targeted by liberals. In 2004 Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania disenfranchised a lot of military voters by disallowing their votes and in 2000 Al Gore worked to exclude the absentee ballots of our men and women serving around the world. These liberals are well aware that a close election could be decided by the absentee ballots of those who serve this country. Since the votes will overwhelmingly go to the Republican, those voters become enemies of the Democratic party. The liberals will do everything they can to keep the votes of our military from counting.
This, of course, is reprehensible. Who would have thought that the very people who protect our freedoms would be denied the rights they ensure others may practice? This should surprise no one because liberals hate the military and believe that money spent on defense would be better off spent on welfare moms who squirt out babies and refuse to work as well as ILLEGALS who break the law to enter this country and steal from the taxpayer.
The military should get a roster of all members who voted absentee and then send liaison officers to every state to ensure that the ballot was received and counted. Any person found disenfranchising those members should receive a mandatory 20 year jail sentence.
Who do you trust in this country, the party that wants to give convicted felons the right to vote, allow people to vote 3 or 4 times, and allow dead people to vote Chicago style, but works to deny military members the right to have their votes counted or the party that wants only those who are legally allowed to vote to do so? After all, Democrats are the party that opposes an ID requirement to vote. Why do you suppose that is?
In an earlier interview Obama said he had to earn the trust of the members of the military. I’d say he failed to do that by a 68-23 margin.
Perhaps our military does not like Obama because he associates with terrorists?
Other Sources:
Washington Post
Newsweek
Tags: disenfranchise, McCain, Military, Obama, support
DNC Has a Choice to Make
May 31, 2008 Opinion, Political
The DNC has been put in a terrible bind by the Democratic Politicians in Florida and Michigan who decided that they wanted to hold their primaries early. The DNC told these leaders that if they did so they would not be able to seat their delegates. The states moved their primaries and the candidates all agreed not to campaign in either state because of the DNC ruling. The DNC figured it could be heavy handed with its threats and that the states would back down. When the states did not back down the sanctions were imposed and it did not, at the time, seem like a big deal because Hillary Clinton was the candidate in waiting. Everyone assumed she would be the winner and that is why these states had early primaries, they wanted to have a say in the process.
The Republicans had a front runner in Rudy but took a more conservative approach and decided to strip half of the delegates from any state that went early. This approach has been seen as fair and has caused no real complaints on the Republican side. The Democrats, however, have a real mess on their hands. It did not start out this way. Everyone expected Hillary to win and she, along with the others, agreed that they would not participate in the states that went early and they were all fine with the decisions of the DNC. Then Hillary turned out not to be the winner. She was getting trounced by Obama and all of the sudden she decides that Florida and Michigan should count.
It always seemed to me that the DNC made the wrong decision from the start because they were so damned adamant about every vote counting in 2000 (even all their dead voters and people’s pets). The word disenfranchisement became part of the vocabulary of people who can’t spell DNC and it was the ugly Republicans who were keeping votes from counting. That all turned out to be a bunch of bunk but after all the caterwauling from the Democrats about every vote counting they would come up with something better than not counting every vote.
A lot of people in Florida and Michigan feel disenfranchised (now that they know what it means) and they are upset that their votes, so far do not count. The DNC feels that it has to at least give the appearance of being tough and having rules but they do not want to tick off people in two states they must have to win. What message will they send? Will they keep it so that no votes count and risk losing the states or will they allow some or all of the delegates to be seated thus telling people that while the DNC has rules it is OK to break them. Unless they stick to their original edict, one which all parties knew and agreed to, then they are waffling in favor of politics. How can we expect these people to run our country when they have no respect for rules, not even the ones they establish?
To the Democrats in Michigan and Florida, it was your party leaders who allowed this to happen. If you want to be mad be mad at them. Vote them out of office and replace them with people who can lead. As for being disenfranchised, that is what happens when you allow greed to top the rules. Your states were so greedy to make a difference that they broke the rules. Don’t worry, we in the Republican party would welcome you with open arms. We will count your votes. You Hillary supporters who think she got shafted, vote for our guy to show your party that you disapprove of their leadership. You Obama supporters who feel that he is getting screwed because he did not campaign in those states and therefore did not do well (to know him is to love him) vote for McCain just to show your party that you will not be taken for granted. We will not disenfranchise you like your party did.
The Democrats are working this out. They will bend the rules in some fashion to allow at least some of the delegates to be seated. This is contrary to the rules they established but they are trying to appease people. They are the party of appeasement and they have a candidate in the lead who will meet with unfriendly nations without precondition so that he can appease them. This is the DNC platform, appeasement and they are showing it with regard to Florida and Michigan.
They want to be everything to everybody and that is not leadership.
Related items:
Yahoo News
Yahoo News 2
Tags: delegates, disenfranchise, dnc, florida, michigan, primary
Which Clinton is Running Against Obama?
Jan 21, 2008 Political
During this primary season we have a Democratic Party which includes H. Rodham Clinton, wife of former president Bill Clinton. When the campaigns started over a year ago a lot was made of Bill and how he would be involved. Hillary made it known that this was her campaign and that she was running on her own and when things started out it certainly looked that way. Then Hillary was rocked in Iowa and went into New Hampshire with a double digit deficit. Enter Bill Clinton.
Bill has been very involved since Hillary’s embarrassing loss in Iowa and since then he has been the one confronting B. Hussein Obama. Sure, Hillary cried to garner the sympathy of women but it has been Bill who has been attacking. Bill went on the warpath and said Obama’s record of opposition to the war was a fairy tale and then he defended the teacher’s union’s lawsuit in an effort to disenfranchise voters in Nevada. Bill then questioned the veracity of the process and accused the union of voter suppression though eyewitnesses tell that it was the Clinton campaign trying to suppress the vote and disenfranchise Obama supporters. That info came from a member of the Daily Kos.
Bill Clinton is now campaigning in South Carolina while Hillary runs through the tsunami Tuesday states. If she is the one running for president, why is she not in South Carolina? It is not unusual for campaigns to send surrogates to future states but usually the candidate campaigns in the active state. Hillary is not in SC and Bill is so that begs the question, which Clinton is running against Obama? Bill Clinton is vastly more popular than his wife and was widely viewed as the first black president which might explain his presence in SC but he is not the candidate. If we are to believe that Hillary is her own person why is she not the one campaigning? If Hillary is capable of being president on her own merits then why does she send her husband out to fight her fights?
When Bill ran in 1992 he told people that with him you get two presidents for the price of one. Is there any doubt that Bill is running for his third term this time as Hillary’s co-president? From what we have seen in her campaign, is there any doubt that Bill will be calling some of the shots? Is there any doubt that Bill will have an active roll in governing this country?
People can make the claim that H. Rodham is the strongest candidate but the truth is, her strength is Bill and without him she is nothing. She depends on him and without his strengths her negatives make her completely unelectable and this is just in the Democratic base. In the national election, nothing Bill says or does will erase the greater than 50% negatives she carries. Republicans will come out in droves to keep her out of office.
Of course, if the Clinton crime family keeps working on the voter disenfranchisement they might be successful in granting Bill his third term.
Tags: bill is running, Clinton, disenfranchise, negatives, third term