Voter Disenfranchisement?

THIS is the second recent Washington Post article to mention voter disenfranchisement and voter intimidation:

...There exists a profound and urgent need for the black church to rise up to the challenge of the moment and to unleash its power, implore its membership and lend its resources to make sure the communities they represent are able to fight these latest attempts at disenfranchisement and voter intimidation....

The article goes on to state the following:

In the age of Obama, this has become somewhat of a challenge. The relentless and unjustifiable assaults against the President, which in too many cases are not about policy differences, have caused many in the black church to withhold criticism. They fear giving inadvertent cover to those who have made it their mission to see him fail, even if it means taking our country down with him.

The other article I mentioned in the first sentence of this post states are follows:

The U.S. Constitution is under assault.

So much so that maybe we ought to inscribe this Latin phrase, Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate, or Abandon all hope, ye who enter here, on it alongside the other weighty ideas. This is particularly true for African Americans on the lower economic rungs.

We need immediate grass-roots support because the right to vote will no longer be a sacrosanct and safeguarded principle if conservatives have their way. That was the thinking of many who gathered in the nation’s capital for the recent Congressional Black Caucus weekend.

Barbara R. Arnwine, executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights under Law since 1989, said a “voting rights wall of shame” is being erected in this country that could disenfranchise minorities and youth in 2012. Just last week, a federal judge in the District reaffirmed the continued need for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and its extensions after a challenge by Shelby County, Alabama....

[...]

...[W]e are still on the battlefield for full enfranchisement. As a response to the clear and decisive disenfranchisement agenda of the right, the U.S. Constitution needs to be amended to make the right to vote explicit!

Is there a reason I'm seeing these two recent references to voter disenfranchisement and voter intimidation?

Are any of you seeing similar references in other venues?

Desperation

Or is it idiocy?

Obama Campaign Selling Dog Leashes That Say 'Barack's Best Friend'

That's right people, for the small price of only fifteen dollars you can now purchase a dog leash that says, "2012 Barack's Best Friend."

Not a dog person? Not to worry. The Obama 2012 campaign is also selling cat collars that say, "Cats for Obama."

Proof of the idiocy and desperation can be found HERE.

The GOP And Grover Norquist

It's not just Rick Perry who has ties to Grover Norquist.

From this source, dated July 12, 2011:

...For more than two decades, signing Norquist’s pledge has been an almost religious rite of passage for Washington Republicans.

The 54-year-old president of Americans for Tax Reform is Washington’s anti-tax doctrinal watchdog, his stature derived from the faith of his Republican signatories. He is using all of his authority to prevent GOP leaders from giving an inch on taxes as President Obama and congressional leaders seek a historic compromise to raise the debt ceiling and bring down the deficit.

Since he first collected the signatures of Jack Kemp, Dick Armey and Newt Gingrich 25 years ago, Norquist has prepared for this very clash, enlisting about 95 percent of the Republican members of Congress in the crusade against tax increases. Along the way, he has become one of Washington’s most visible and idiosyncratic characters: a zealous, self-promoting tax scourge who presides over a weekly meeting of conservative power brokers and dabbles in stand-up comedy.

[...]

Norquist said he has also been in frequent touch with the Republican presidential candidates, who have emerged as a solid bloc against a compromise. Copies of their pledges — with the exception of holdout Jon Huntsman Jr. — are kept in a black binder on the desk of one his interns.

“I talk with [Mitt] Romney directly,” Norquist said. He mentioned that Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) will be attending his Wednesday meeting this week and that Gingrich recently sent him an unsolicited statement strongly opposing backing down in the debt talks. For Norquist, any other position would be unacceptable....

Much more at the above link.

Additional reading on Rick Perry and his "pro-shari'a curriculum" - from a different source. One brief excerpt:

...Earlier this year, Norquist spoke at the Faith and Freedom Coalition Conference, along with Michele Bachmann, Allen West, Thad McCotter, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, Marco Rubio, Herman Cain, Paul Ryan, and Newt Gingrich.

Bachmann, West, Rubio, McCotter, and Ryan are all proud signatories to Norquist’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge, with their names proudly displayed – with permission – on his website...

Read it all HERE.

I'm not endorsing Rick Perry in this post.

But I am saying that those who are so eager to see Obama voted out in 2012 should be wary of the divide-and-conquer strategy, which the Democratic Party well knows how to turn to its advantage.

Furthermore, very recently Breivik did damage to the credibility and reputation of the counterjihad blogosphere, be that damage deserved or not. I say not, but others clearly don't see the Breivik damage the same way that I do.

In my view, with regard to demonizing Rick Perry, we'd be wise not to step off the cliff and give the opposition more opportunity to damage our credibility and reputation any further.

Here's What the GOP Needs To Keep Harping On

With a hat tip to Z:


Have the GOP candidates across the board repeat it loudly and often to the point that the mainstream media cannot ignore it.

For What It's Worth

From Gallup on July 14, 2011:

"Republican Candidate" Extends Lead vs. Obama to 47% to 39%

Margin marks first statistically significant lead among registered voters

Registered voters by a significant margin now say they are more likely to vote for the "Republican Party's candidate for president" than for President Barack Obama in the 2012 election, 47% to 39%. Preferences had been fairly evenly divided this year in this test of Obama's re-election prospects.

The latest results are based on a July 7-10 poll, and show that the Republican has an edge for the second consecutive month....

Note that the poll was taken before Obama mentioned the possibility of not sending out August U.S. Treasury checks.

GOP: I Give You Fair Warning

You had better get your act together and be assertive in the campaign for the White House in 2012. Otherwise, Obama is going to get re-elected.

I base my assertion on an essay I read in the Washington Post:

Obama’s trash-talking presser
By Dana Milbank,
Published: June 29

The best answer President Obama gave at his news conference was to a question nobody asked.

An hour into his unusually feisty performance in the East Room, the president was responding to CNN’s Jessica Yellin, who had pressed him on the deadline for raising the debt limit, when he decided to make a larger point.

“I’ve got to say, I’m very amused when I start hearing comments about, ‘Well, the president needs to show more leadership on this,’” Obama said, referring to the complaint made by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) when he walked out of budget talks. “Well, hey, lemme tell you something,” he said with a smile, chopping the lectern with an open hand.

“This thing,” he said after reciting the instances of his involvement in the talks, “is just not on the level.” To the Republicans, he said, “they need to do their jobs. . . You need to be here. I’ve been here. I’ve been doing Afghanistan and bin Laden and the Greek crisis.”

Obama gave a case-closed shrug. “All right,” he said. “I think you know my feelings about that.”

This was Obama as he ought to be. He often seems passive in public, giving friend and foe alike the impression that his presidency is adrift on matters from Libya to gay marriage to the debt talks. But on Wednesday, in his first full news conference in three months, he was uncharacteristically assertive...

[...]

“Call me naive, but my expectation is that leaders are going to lead,” Obama admonished the opposition. He likened the Republicans to kids who procrastinate on their homework, and to deadbeats: “They took the vacation. They bought the car. And now they’re saying, ‘Maybe we don’t have to pay’ . . . We’re the greatest nation on Earth and we can’t act that way.”

Populism, pugilism and American exceptionalism: From a stoic president, this was a refreshing blend.

Obama wants to play hardball, it seems.

GOP, you had better get into the game with a hardball offensive of your own. Act the wimp, and the Oval Office will again belong to Obama.

Mark my words: the strong man (or woman) will be the victor in November 2012.

Gen44

Obama, once again, turns to the cult of personality as an election strategy:

Gen44 is the newest program here at the DNC - created to cultivate and empower a rising generation of leaders of the Democratic Party. Are you Gen44?

As the Washington Post stated:

...The West Wing charm offensive shows how Obama’s White House, which has eschewed Clinton-style traditions of feeding donor egos with Lincoln bedroom overnights and frequent phone calls from the president, is adjusting itself for a campaign that needs to overcome low approval ratings and a sour economy

With the economy in the dumper, will the American electorate be as susceptible to the "charm offensive" as in 2008? I think so - if the GOP doesn't get its act together.

Obama For Another Four Years?

In Front Page Magazine, Phyllis Chesler opines:

President Obama’s election is due, in part, to the desire among many American liberals and leftists to be seen as “atoning” for the sin of racism and the crimes of slavery. The fact that Obama is bi-racial—his mother was white—matters little since he looks like an African-American. Indeed, the President’s own writing focuses on his African, Muslim roots, especially because his Kenyan father abandoned both him and his mother.

In an era of symbolic identity politics and affirmative action, only one kind of candidate could trump Obama’s credentials and that would be an African-American woman....

[...]

Given the extraordinary pathology of Bush Derangement Syndrome, and short of Armeggedon, I do not believe that enough Americans will, without doubt, elect another white male Republican. No matter what his politics may be, he himself will be seen as retrograde, anti-woman, anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, pro-racism, pro-war and as both dull and evil. The media, combined with Soros and Saudi monies and our intelligentsia have poisoned the minds of millions....

Read the rest HERE.

Have we really reached the point that whom we elect to the Oval Office depends upon race and gender?

Is white guilt that powerful a force?

Is gender correctness that powerful a force?

Maybe.

When Obama was elected in 2008, many Americans rejoiced, "We are living in an unprecedented time!"

Of course, electing an African-American President was indeed unprecedented for America. There is no denying that fact.

But what tide has been set in motion with this idea of "We must continue with unprecedented times"? Shouldn't political platform be the deciding factor for voters and not race and gender?

When I first read Chesler's essay, I thought to myself, "She's way off base." But the longer I think about what she has written, the more I think that she has a valid point.

Something has gone very wrong with the American electorate. We have lost sight of what deciding upon a political leader should mean.

EMP? We Don't Need No Stinkin' EMP

Just in case Obummah is short a few crisis options for his pre-election 2012 "October Surprise" -- jihad attacks, Iranian nukes, US/Mexico border classes, stock market crashes -- here's another one he can add to his wish list. Posted at RightPundits.

SOLAR STORMS IN 2012 -- EARTH'S KATRINA?
By Andrew Zarowny

NASA scientists are warning about potential solar storms in 2012. Disaster expert Lawrence E. Joseph warns this could this be Earth’s Katrina. In 2006, our Sun reached it’s solar minimum, a point during the eleven-year cycle where there are few solar storms. Just weeks ago, a major solar storm, a solar tsunami, known as a coronal mass ejection, erupted from a sunspot. For several days, there were minor disruptions in communications. Yet, we are still over a year from the next solar maximum, where such storms will be more frequent.

By the summer of 2011, our Sun will be entering it’s next solar maximum, which will continue through much of 2012. The next solar minimum will not be until 2017. So the next several years we will be experiencing more solar tsunamis. Could solar storms in 2012 have any dramatic effects such as Hurricane Katrina?

On November 4th, 2003, a massive solar flare erupted. NASA satellite SOHO recorded the solar storm which was classified as an X-45 event, the largest observed solar tsunami ever witnessed. Had the coronal mass ejection happened three months later, Earth would have born a direct hit, causing serious damage to our communications and electrical power grid networks.

Such massive solar flares occur regularly, but until recently, their impact has been negligible. Had previous solar storms, like those recorded in 1859 and 1921 hit Earth today, devices such as high-voltage transformers, necessary for electrical power transmission, could be knocked out. Thousands of such units are highly vulnerable and require addition surge protection before 2012.

Disaster expert Lawrence E. Joseph is warning Congress to spend $250 Million dollars to upgrade our electrical grid before the next wave of solar storms in 2012. He says the impact could be the equivalent of a Hurricane Katrina, knocking large portions of America’s electrical grid offline for several months. Such would disrupt food and water supplies, law enforcement, and even national security. Solar storms were to blame for blackouts in Quebec in 1989, as well as in Sweden and South Africa in 2003.