Let me get this straight - The President and his Democratic allies will do anything they can to allow access to vote, including making sure that laws are in place that likely allow people who are non-citizens to vote BUT they have gone to court to limit access to voting for our US Military members??? Really ???
If you have served our country or have someone you love who defended this country in uniform, you need to VOTE the unethical, shallow hypocrite out of office.
The President has proven to be unfit to command and undeserving of the support of anyone who cares about the defense of our country.
August 3, 2012
Obama campaign sues to restrict voting by military
Rick Moran - The American Thinker
If requiring a citizen to show a picture ID to vote is "suppressing the vote," what does it mean when the Obama campaign really makes an effort to prevent our soldiers from voting?
President Barack Obama, along with many Democrats, likes to say that, while they may disagree with the GOP on many issues related to national security, they absolutely share their admiration and dedication to members of our armed forces. Obama, in particular, enjoys being seen visiting troops and having photos taken with members of our military. So, why is his campaign and the Democrat party suing to restrict their ability to vote in the upcoming election?
On July 17th, the Obama for America Campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and the Ohio Democratic Party filed suit in OH to strike down part of that state's law governing voting by members of the military. Their suit said that part of the law is "arbitrary" with "no discernible rational basis."
Currently, Ohio allows the public to vote early in-person up until the Friday before the election. Members of the military are given three extra days to do so. While the Democrats may see this as "arbitrary" and having "no discernible rational basis," I think it is entirely reasonable given the demands on servicemen and women's time and their obligations to their sworn duty.
The National Defense Committee reports:
[f]or each of the last three years, the Department of Defense's Federal Voting Assistance Program has reported to the President and the Congress that the number one reason for military voter disenfranchisement is inadequate time to successfully vote.
I think it's unconscionable that we as a nation wouldn't make it as easy as possible for members of the military to vote. They arguably have more right to vote than the rest of us, since it is their service and sacrifice that ensures we have the right to vote in the first place.
I would disagree that the military has "more right" to vote than anyone. Everyone has an equal right to vote as long as they're registered and a citizen, and by saying that some have a greater right to vote, it means that others have a lesser right to vote -- and that's unacceptable.
Not really important, except it appears the Obama administration is buying that argument. With the suit, they are saying that our soldiers have a lesser right to vote than others. The law is designed to give military personnel an equal opportunity to cast their ballot. and by fighting that notion, the Obama campaign is seeking to suppress the military vote, knowing that it usually goes 2-1 Republican
ALL I can say is BRAVO ZULU to this retired US NAVY SEAL.....
This is just what we need - Those who swore an oath promising that " I will support and defend the Constitution of
the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" need better leadership than what we have seen from the grandstanding idiot from Chicago.
Based on the actions of the sitting President, he acts in the manner of a domestic enemy of the US Constitution.
Retired US NAVY SEAL launches anti-Obama PAC
Asbury Park Press - July 18, 2012
A new super PAC that includes retired special operations personnel and other veterans announced plans Wednesday to raise money to run ads in swing states against President Obama.
The group, Special Operations for America, filed paperwork Monday with the Federal Election Commission. It is headed by retired Navy SEAL Commander Ryan Zinke. During his 23-year career, Zinke spent time in the Navy’s elite SEAL Team 6, the same team that killed Osama bin Laden in a commando raid last year.
Zinke said he and other members of the special operations community are outraged that SEAL Team 6 was identified as the commando unit that carried out the raid, saying it put its members and their families at risk. Zinke said he believes the president has politicized his role as commander in chief to win re-election.
“Who was it at risk?” he said. “Was it the president? Or was it the young SEAL with the wife and kid at home? That’s the arrogance.”
Zinke, a Republican state senator from Montana, said the group also objects to deep military cuts and increases in health care costs to veterans. While he agreed there’s room for cuts in military spending, he said the $1.1 trillion in cuts over 10 years that could start at the end of the year are too deep.
Special Operations for America is registered as a 527 group, and it can take unlimited amounts of money from contributors. Whatever money the organization eventually raises, Hommel said, would be used to air ads in swing states targeted on veterans issues.
Rob Diamond, the national veterans and military families vote director for the Obama campaign, said the president “has their backs” when it comes to veterans and military families, and the president’s record is a “stark contrast” to Mitt Romney’s. He said Romney has refused to outline plans for veterans, has suggested that health services provided by Veterans Affairs be privatized and has failed to put forth a specific jobs proposal to get veterans back to work.
“Even worse, his reckless and nave statements about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan show that he would prefer our servicemen and women remain overseas, indefinitely fighting in wars he has no strategy to lead and no plan to end,” Diamond said in a statement.
Not all members of the new super PAC are veterans, Zinke said. Members are “people who have been successful on the battlefield or in business.” Its board includes former Republican Sen. Conrad Burns of Montana and former Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons, and it has ties to the conservative groups Stand Up for America and Veterans for a Strong America.
“It’s a good group of guys, and they’re going to come out swinging,” said Joel Arends, an Iraq Army veteran and chairman of Veterans for a Strong America.
But Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics said there’s debate over how much influence these types of groups have in presidential elections.
Sabato thinks macro issues drive presidential elections, issues such as the economy, war and peace and scandals. In this election, the campaigns for Obama and presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney have been competently run so far, he said.
Still, polls generally give Romney an edge with veterans, he said, and such groups can have an effect on the margins. But they aren’t the deciding forces.
“I don’t think it will be one of the things we’ll cite after the election’s over,” he said.
Something President Obama needs to review:
The Oath of Office:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Based on the way he is acting, he is in violation of the oath he took and has decided to treat the US Constitution the way he has treated the will of the people; with disdain and a condescending attitude. The DEMS used to howl about how they felt that President Bush mistreating the law as President, but Barry from Chicago gets a free pass from his own party.
It is hard to believe this man taught Constitutional Law in college. This poser has got to go. 11 months until election day and not soon enough until the American voters can deliver a strong message to the "Lecturer in Chief" and his attitudinal spouse.
Time to Go Mr. President. You have embarrassed our country enough.
Acting Like A King Isn't Among The President's Duties
Investros Business Daily
01/04/2012
Leadership: A spokesman says the president "can't wait for Congress to act" and promised that he's "going to take action." This is the president who was "ready to rule" in 2008. Is he an elected chief executive or an emperor?
In November 2008, shortly after Barack Obama was elected president, Valerie Jarrett, co-chair of his transition team, appeared on "Meet the Press." She told host Tom Brokaw that "Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one."
Shouldn't someone who had reached the political heights that Jarrett had reached know that kings rule but presidents are elected to serve and are accountable to Congress, the courts and the voters?
One would think that she and the rest of the administration are aware of a president's legal limitations, but simply aren't interested in respecting them.
A little more than three years after Jarrett declared Obama's majesty, his spokesman Jay Carney warned on the day of the Iowa caucuses that "if Republicans choose the path of obstruction rather than cooperation, then the president is not going to sit here . .. he's going to take the actions that he can take using his executive authority."
Within a day, Obama made good on the threat. On Wednesday, he bypassed the congressional approval process and named Richard Cordray as head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The appointment, made while the Senate is in a pro forma session and not in recess, came after that chamber blocked Cordray's confirmation last month.
Not only is Obama trampling precedent that says recess appointments are to be done only after the Senate has been out of session for 10 days or more, he's also trying to circumvent legislation.
As noted by Mark Calabria of the Cato Institute, the Dodd-Frank bill that created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau requires the CFPB's authority to remain with the Treasury secretary until the CFPB director is "confirmed by the Senate." Cordray still lacks that confirmation.
Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast Apparently feeling like a gambler on a roll, Obama followed up the Cordray appointment by placing Sharon Block, Terence Flynn and Richard Griffin on the National Labor Relations Board. Of little concern to Obama are the wishes of the Senate Republicans, who had blocked these appointments, which they have the right to do within our system.
Clearly our American arrangement of checks and balances written into the Constitution is an impediment to this president. Before Carney made his statement Tuesday, Obama himself said in October that "we can no longer wait for Congress to do its job. ... So where Congress won't act, I will."
He, of course, is talking more about the House, which voters turned over to the Republicans in 2010, than the Senate, which is still in Democrats' hands.
The president might not like it that he no longer has a Democratic majority in the House to help him ram through legislation. But he should stay within the constitutional obstructions that the opposition party is expected to place in front of him.
In Wednesday's Cleveland speech when he announced the CFPB and NLRB appointments, Obama said anyone who "plays by the rules can get ahead." Yet the president is playing outside the rules and pretending he's doing it as a favor for the country. His motives, though, are clear. He wants to wield power that exceeds what the Constitution delegated to the president.
Maybe First Lady Michelle Obama wasn't acting when she said on a kids television sitcom that she enjoyed being called "your excellency." Maybe she was speaking for her husband, too.
