Posts tagged voting
Blount County Tax Revolt Issues Endorsements for Local Primary Elections
Here are the endorsements for the May 6, 2014 local County Primary elections, along with a School Board endorsement for the August 7 primary.
We have endorsed the following candidates for:
County Commission Republican Primary:
District 1 Seat A: Archie Archer
District 1 Seat B: [no endorsement]
District 2 Seat A: Mike Akard
District 2 Seat B: Douglas Benton
District 3 Seat A: Sean Thompson
District 3 Seat B: Chipper Wyatt
District 4 Seat A: Linda King
District 4 Seat B: Karen Miller
District 4 Seat C: [no endorsement]
District 5 Seat A: [no endorsement]
District 5 Seat B: Wade Masters
District 6 Seat A: Thomas Cole
District 6 Seat B: [no endorsement]
District 7 Seat A: Troy Ball
District 7 Seat B: Tona Monroe
District 8 Seat A: [no endorsement]
District 8 Seat B: [candidate withdrew]
District 9 Seat A: [no endorsement]
District 9 Seat B: Steve Simon
District 10 Seat A: Jamie Daly*
District 10 Seat B: Larry Henry
County Commission Democrat Primary:
District 4 Seat A: Richard Neal Hutchens
General Sessions Judge:
Division 2: Kenlyn Foster
County School Board:
District 7: Stan Giles*
For other positions, please check back later. There is a chance there may be one more endorsement.
Don’t forget, early voting is April 16 through May 1. Election Day is May 6.
Click here for a printable list. You can print this and stick it to your fridge as a reminder,
or give copies to your neighbors. Here’s the URL for hand outs. http://blountcountytaxrevolt.com/
* Stan Giles was originally endorsed for District 10 seat A. He dropped out to run for School Board District 7. Our endorsement follows him, and we are supporting Jamie Daly for Seat A. The school board election will take place in August. I will update this with specific dates.
The Associated Press | Posted: Feb 27, 2013 4:49 PM ET | Last Updated: Feb 27, 2013 5:25 PM ET
The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative justices voiced deep skepticism Wednesday about a section of a landmark civil rights law that has helped millions of Americans exercise their right to vote.
In an ominous note for supporters of the key provision of the Voting Rights Act, Justice Anthony Kennedy both acknowledged the measure’s vital role in fighting discrimination and suggested that other important laws in U.S. history had run their course. “Times change,” Kennedy said during the fast-paced, 70-minute argument.
Kennedy’s views are likely to prevail on the closely divided court, and he tends to side with his more conservative colleagues on matters of race.
The court’s liberals and conservatives engaged in a sometimes tense back-and-forth over whether there is still a need in 2013 for the part of the voting rights law that requires states with a history of discrimination against blacks, mainly in the Deep South, to get approval before making changes in the way elections are held.
Justice Antonin Scalia called the law a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.”
Chief Justice John Roberts, a vocal skeptic of the use of race in all areas of public life, cited a variety of statistics that showed starker racial disparities in some aspects of voting in the northeastern state of Massachusetts than in the southern state of Mississippi. Then he asked the government’s top Supreme Court lawyer whether the Obama administration thinks “the citizens in the South are more racist than citizens in the North?”
The answer from Solicitor General Donald Verrilli was no.
Location of law
The question, and others like it from the conservative justices, largely echoed the doubts they first expressed four years ago in a similar case that ended without resolving the constitutionality of the latest renewal of the voting rights law, in 2006. They questioned whether there remain appreciable differences between the locations covered by the law and those that are not.
They also wondered whether there was any end in sight for a provision that intrudes on states’ rights to conduct elections and which was regarded as an emergency response to decades of state-sponsored discrimination in voting, despite the U.S Constitution’s Fifteenth Amendment guarantee of the vote for black Americans.
The provision shifted the legal burden and required governments that were covered to demonstrate that their proposed changes would not discriminate. Another part of the voting rights law, not being challenged, allows for traditional, after-the-fact claims of discrimination in voting and applies across the country.
As his administration was defending the voting rights law, U.S. President Barack Obama was across the street at the Capitol unveiling a statue of civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks, who in 1955 famously refused to give up her seat on a city bus in Montgomery, Alabama, to a white man. The court will have to decide whether the conditions that gave rise to that seminal event are, like the statue, a part of history, or whether they persist in parts of the nation.
The court’s four liberal justices, including Obama appointees Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, appeared uniformly to be willing to defer to the decision by Congress that more progress needs to be made before freeing states from the special federal monitoring.
Those justices aggressively questioned Bert Rein, the lawyer representing Shelby County, Alabama, a southern state, in its challenge to the law.
Sotomayor acknowledged some parts of the South had changed, but she asserted that recent voting rights lawsuits in Alabama suggested that Shelby County, near Birmingham, has not made sufficient progress.
“Why would we vote in favour of a county whose record is the epitome of what caused the passage of this law to start with?” Sotomayor asked.
Kagan chimed in that any formula devised by Congress “would capture Alabama,” where she said certain discriminatory voting practices have persisted.
But Rein said the issue was whether the formula in place, using statistics that are at least 40 years old, remains a valid way to determine which locations have to ask for permission to make voting changes.
Protection of minorities
Debo Adegbile, a lawyer for the NAACP Legal Defence and Educational Fund, argued to the court on behalf of local Alabama elected officials and civil rights leaders. He sought to show the justices that there is a current need for the law, an effort to counter the court’s admonition four years ago that current conditions, not history alone, must justify the continuing application of the law. The NAACP is a leading civil rights organization.
In 2011, Adegbile said, a judge in Alabama cited state lawmakers’ derogatory references to African-Americans as a reason to continue to protect minority voters through the Voting Rights Act.
But Roberts challenged the lawyer. “Have there been episodes, egregious episodes of the kind you are talking about in states that are not covered?” the chief justice asked.
Absolutely, Adegbile replied.
“Well, then it doesn’t seem to help you make the point that the differential between covered and noncovered continues to be justified,” Roberts said.
The requirement currently applies to the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia. It also covers certain counties in California, Florida, New York, North Carolina and South Dakota, and some local jurisdictions in Michigan and New Hampshire. Coverage has been triggered by past discrimination not only against blacks, but also against American Indians, Asian-Americans, Alaska Natives and Hispanics.
Among the covered states, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas are siding with Shelby County, while California, Mississippi, New York and North Carolina argue that the law should be upheld.
Nearly 250 of the 12,000 state, county and local governments covered by the law have used an escape hatch to get out from under the special oversight by demonstrating that they and smaller places within their borders no longer discriminate in voting. The 10 covered towns in New Hampshire are poised to exit as they await federal court approval for an agreement between the state and the Justice Department.
A decision is expected by late June.
By Gary Franchi
TRANSCRIPT FROM: http://youtu.be/StyENMeBbtw
Did Bloomberg news get the facts straight, did Raw story report on damning information about me? Did Trevor Lyman’s Liberty Crier embellish a headline to drive traffic to his site? Did PolicyMic accurately report on the story? Did I pay out a million dollars from the coffers of the Revolution PAC for administration? I respond to the accusations. Get Ready for a special edition of the Reality Report.
By Lori Stacey, DC Conservative Examiner
With several strong alternative candidates available to vote for either on the ballot or as official write-in candidates, will the American people send a strong message to both the major parties by voting for anyone but Obama & Romney? It is hard to say what voters will ultimately do but what is apparent is that there has never been such a strong degree of discontent with the major party choices of candidates than in this presidential election of 2012.
Will Ron Paul finally get his legitimate win in the state of Maine where he has officially been set-up as a write-in candidate? We know the primary results were wrought with obvious fraud and then most of his duly elected delegates were not allowed to be seated at the national convention. Will the people of Maine finally be allowed to be heard in casting their real choice for President on the election night that counts the most?
Ron Paul’s supporters have surprisingly set him up as an official write-in candidate in at least a dozen or more states. The latest state is in California where he will be available for a write-in vote with Judge Napolitano as his Vice Presidential running mate. Don’t expect these write-in votes to be counted, tallied and published until weeks after election night.
Virgil Goode is going to be another one to watch, particularly in the states of Virginia, Colorado, Nevada and possibly in Ohio. He is still wildly popular in southern Virginia where he served as a member of congress for 6 two-year terms and is running his campaign very hard in this state. In Colorado, the Constitution Party broke through in 2010 and now has Major Party status in the state, thanks to the incredible run by Tom Tancredo for Governor in that election year. Expect voters to take Virgil Goode’s candidacy very seriously in Colorado.
Gary Johnson has become a very popular choice among the segment of Ron Paul’s support that leaned more heavily on libertarianism rather than conservatism. Expect him to be a strong force to deal with in several states.
Please note that the debate has been rescheduled for November 5th due to hurricane Sandy.
Libertarian Party candidate Gov. Gary Johnson and the Green Party’s Jill Stein will sound off once more before Election Day, with both presidential hopefuls now slated to debate live from RT’s Washington, DC studio on November 5.
Tens of thousands around the globe watched earlier this week when broadcasting legend Larry King moderated a debate between the top third-party candidates live from Chicago. As those politicians continue to be shunned by the mainstream media and political establishment alike, though, they remain excluded from presenting their platform to the country on the eve of a historic election. RT aims to make a difference, however, and will host Johnson and Stein to speak their minds on the topics Americans really care about in 2012.
Following the success of this week’s Third Party Presidential Debate broadcast on RT live from Chicago, the top candidates as selected by voters on the Free and Equal Elections Foundation website will move on to a second debate from the nation’s capital, this time answering questions dedicated solely to foreign policy.
“The voters have spoken, and we are pleased to announce that Gary Johnson and Jill Stein will advance to the second debate,” Christina Tobin, founder and chair of Free and Equal, tells RT.
When Johnson and Stein took the stage to participate in the first third-party debate this year, the candidates sounded off on questions that, while vital to the voting public, were absent from the discussions held between President Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney during the televised debates that selected only Democrat and Republican politicians to participate.
The debate, which was originally set for October 30, was postponed as a result of Hurricane Sandy.
The second and final third-party presidential debate will be held on November 5 from 9:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. Eastern Time, (November 6, 1:00 a.m. – 2:30 a.m. GMT) and will be aired on RT America as well as RT.com and on RT’s YouTube channel.
Published on Oct 22, 2012 by TheBigPictureRT
So, your Nobel Peace Prize-winning European Union is demanding that indebted nations like Greece and Portugal privatize all their water resources if they want to continue receiving bail outs. As in – you want to stay in the Eurozone? Then hand over your most precious commons to transnational corporations. This is in line with the broader privatization agenda we’re seeing all around the world – especially here in America as water, roads, school, prisons – you name it – are all being privatized and taken out of the hands of “we the people.” These are all assaults on democracy.
For your reference:
Posted by Karen Lehrke
Written By Barry Ritholtz
The Left Right Paradigm is Over: Its You vs. Corporations
Every generation or so, a major secular shift takes place that shakes up the existing paradigm. It happens in industry, finance, literature, sports, manufacturing, technology, entertainment, travel, communication, etc.
I would like to discuss the paradigm shift that is occurring in politics.
For a long time, American politics has been defined by a Left/Right dynamic. It was Liberals versus Conservatives on a variety of issues. Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice, Tax Cuts vs. More Spending, Pro-War vs Peaceniks, Environmental Protections vs. Economic Growth, Pro-Union vs. Union-Free, Gay Marriage vs. Family Values, School Choice vs. Public Schools, Regulation vs. Free Markets.
The new dynamic, however, has moved past the old Left Right paradigm. We now live in an era defined by increasing Corporate influence and authority over the individual. These two “interest groups” – I can barely suppress snorting derisively over that phrase – have been on a headlong collision course for decades, which came to a head with the financial collapse and bailouts. Where there is massive concentrations of wealth and influence, there will be abuse of power. The Individual has been supplanted in the political process nearly entirely by corporate money, legislative influence, campaign contributions, even free speech rights.
This may not be a brilliant insight, but it is surely an overlooked one. It is now an Individual vs. Corporate debate – and the Humans are losing.
• Many of the regulations that govern energy and banking sector were written by Corporations;
• The biggest influence on legislative votes is often Corporate Lobbying;
• Corporate ability to extend copyright far beyond what original protections amounts to a taking of public works for private corporate usage;
• PAC and campaign finance by Corporations has supplanted individual donations to elections;
• The individuals’ right to seek redress in court has been under attack for decades, limiting their options.
• DRM and content protection undercuts the individual’s ability to use purchased content as they see fit;
• Patent protections are continually weakened. Deep pocketed corporations can usurp inventions almost at will;
• The Supreme Court has ruled that Corporations have Free Speech rights equivalent to people; (So much for original intent!)
None of these are Democrat/Republican conflicts, but rather, are corporate vs. individual issues.
For those of you who are stuck in the old Left/Right debate, you are missing the bigger picture. Consider this about the Bailouts: It was a right-winger who bailed out all of the big banks, Fannie Mae, and AIG in the first place; then his left winger successor continued to pour more money into the fire pit.
What difference did the Left/Right dynamic make? Almost none whatsoever.
By Chris Miles
The Republican National Convention saw some uneasy disruption from within its own ranks on Tuesday, as Ron Paul supporters vocally protested the removing of Ron Paul delegates.
Ron Paul supporters burst out into chants and protests at the Republican convention on Tuesday afternoon, shouting “point of order!” in unison to protest the RNC’s decision not to seat Paul delegates from Maine. A point of order is a matter raised during consideration of a motion concerning the rules of parliamentary procedure.
They also battled rules changes for the 2016 primaries that they warn will reduce the grassroot’s impact. Mitt Romney supporters tried to drown them out with chants of “USA!”
Here’s how it played out:
Chants of “let them sit” erupted on the convention floor supporting Maine’s Ron Paul delegates stripped of their seats. Ron Paul-leaning delegates from Oklahoma and Oregon were allowed to sit.
The US government, under the leadership of the globalist puppet, Barack Obama, knows that the general American public is waking up to the tyranny that is being forced upon them. The divide and conquer ideal purveyed by the mainstream media (MSM) in America may be the second false flag that coerces us into having a “civil war” before the November 2012 elections.
Obama has amassed a “legion of lawyers” to flood the court system with support should problems arise from the voting process. The preparatory process alludes to the fact that they anticipate a problem with the voting.
The electronic voting booths are being pushed in time for the 2012 presidential election season as a way to answer to potential issues brought on my mail-in ballots by overseas Americans and US armed forces service members.
A report by Counting Votes 2012 says that electronically submitted ballots cannot be independently audited and are prone to being hacked. Additionally, electronic voting leaves nothing to recount in a dispute.
Pam Smith of the Verified Voting Foundation explains: “They’re trying to do a calculus and make it easy for the voter, and they may not realize the great risk they’re putting those votes at.”
The Obama campaign, Obama for America, is suing to restrict the right of military service people to be able to vote 3 days early in Ohio as is allowed by law . The Obama administration believes this law is “arbitrary” and has “no discernable rational basis.”
The National Defense Committee stated : “[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.”
In 2003, Aviel D. Rubin, technical director of the Information Security Institute at Johns Hopkins University, along with a team of researchers showed that electronic voting systems software from Diebold Election Systems had “stunning, stunning flaws.”
These voting booths, equipped with computer-chipped smart cards that could be remotely manipulated quite easily.
In 2010, the District of Columbia set up a fake voting program and encouraged hackers to attempt to corrupt their system. One hacker group was successful in changing the votes, showing that electronic voting systems are easily manipulated.
The online voting option is still a hopeful option as an alternative for the 20% of the 2.5 military voters that would otherwise send in absentee ballots, according to the Military Voters Protection Project .
The globalization of American voting has begun with the purchase of the process to be overseen by a private corporation controlled by SOE software which operates under the name Clarity Elections.
By Mindy Allan
Op-Ed: Lawyers for Ron Paul take over campaign
“Lawyers for Ron Paul“, which is a group of avid supporters that is unaffiliated with Ron Paul, has taken over the Ron Paul campaignto expose the fraud and threats that have pushed father and son to bow out. Ron Paul supporters are stepping up to continue the fight to get Ron Paul on the ballot in Tampa.The Ron Paul campaign started crashing after the rumored threat against Ron Paulwas made at the Bilderberg meeting and reported by Alex Jones, which was followed up by the endorsement by Rand Paul of Mitt Romney.
Why did the Pauls change direction? A repeat of what happened to Ross Perot is happening again with the Ron Paul campaign. The only difference this time is “Lawyers from Ron Paul” and Paul’s supporters are moving forward without the consent of the Pauls who are no longer speaking out against Romney. If the choice is between the lives of your family or the continued fight for the people, most would make the choice that Perot made and, now, the Pauls have had to make. (more…)