Category Archives: Politics

Video: Votes for Republicans Switched to Democrats in Illinois

Two Illinois voters say their attempts to vote early for Republicans on an electronic voting machine were registered as votes for Democrats—and they say have the video evidence to prove it.

The voters are 18- and 19-year-old Moline residents who asked to remain anonymous. They say they went to their polling station on Monday, October 28, at the Moline Public Library. Both say they were aware of recent news stories that other early voters in their area had experienced difficulties voting on electronic machines. The complaints have been widespread.

The Republican House candidate for the area, Bobby Schilling, claims 20 supporters have called his campaign to say that their attempts to vote for him were switched to his opponent, Democratic congresswoman Cheri Bustos.

“Two nights ago, I took a call from a supporter of mine who said that his mother-in-law had gone to the library to vote and that every time that she went to push my name that it automatically bounced up to my opponents name,” Schilling told KWQC, the local NBC affiliate, on October 24. “I thought, well, maybe she mixed up, she’s an older gal, but come to find out in the last two days I’ve taken 17 calls of people saying the exact same thing.”

The two Moline voters say they didn’t expect to experience problems. They figured the problem was older people were having difficult with the machines’ touchscreens. But both said their attempts to vote for Republicans on several races were switched to select the Democrat. One of the voters said he tried to vote for the Republican candidate in the races for U.S. House and the state senate, and that both his votes were registered as those for the Democratic candidate. The second voter said he had the same problem for those races as well as those for the state house and the Rock Island County clerk race.

“I pressed the top of the box for [Republican state senate candidate] Neil Anderson, and it clicked for [Democratic state senator] Mike Jacobs,” he said. The machines, both voters said, require the use of fingers, and no stylus or other device is provided.

The voters say they decided to use their cell phones to film their votes after having trouble. They said they wanted to show how easily the machines registered the wrong vote. Watch that video below:

Eventually, both voters were able to vote for the Republican candidates, as they say they preferred. They said the screen appeared to be poorly calibrated, so that while pressing anywhere in the box for a Democrat registered a vote for the Democrat, only pressing the bottom half of the Republican box did so for the Republican. The only way to make the correct vote, they said, was to press the incorrectly checked box to “uncheck” it, then press low in the Republican’s box. The voters say they were able to figure this out without calling over an election judge for help.

In an article in the Quad City Times published Monday morning, the Democratic clerk for Rock Island County pushed back against the criticisms of her office’s handling of early voting.

Kinney’s office has been the target of a Republican Party attack that not only is she opening ballots early and counting them but that her voting machines are calibrated in such a way that switches votes from Republican to Democrat.

Rock Island County Circuit Judge Lori Lefstein denied the GOP’s emergency injunction on the counting of absentee ballots.

“There is nothing wrong in this office,” Kinney, a Democrat, said afterward.

One of the voters who spoke with me says his attempt to vote for Kinney’s Republican opponent was registered as a vote for Kinney. He eventually voted for the Republican.

Jon Schweppe, a spokesman for the Schilling campaign, says he called an official on the Illinois state board of elections on Friday afternoon about the voters’ complaints.

“I spoke with Bruce Brown at the Illinois State Board of Elections,” Schweppe says. “He called me back about an hour later after speaking with the Rock Island County Clerk’s office. He told me he suggested a full recalibration to fix the problem. He said it was a common problem and easy to fix.”

Kinney told the Times she recalibrated the machines on Friday, though the video above (taken days later, on Monday) suggests that did not fix the problem.

Others in Illinois, where early voting began on October 20, have claimed similar problems with electronic voting machines. One Republican state house candidate in Cook County claimed his attempt to vote for himself was initially regsitered as a vote for his Democratic opponent.

Could non-citizens decide the November election?

Could non-citizens decide the November election?

Washington Post      By Jesse Richman and David Earnest

October 24, 2014

Could control of the Senate in 2014 be decided by illegal votes cast by non-citizens? Some argue that incidents of voting by non-citizens are so rare as to be inconsequential, with efforts to block fraud a screen for an agenda to prevent poor and minority voters from exercising the franchise, while others define such incidents as a threat to democracy itself. Both sides depend more heavily on anecdotes than data.

In a forthcoming article in the journal Electoral Studies, we bring real data from big social science survey datasets to bear on the question of whether, to what extent, and for whom non-citizens vote in U.S. elections. Most non-citizens do not register, let alone vote. But enough do that their participation can change the outcome of close races.

Our data comes from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES). Its large number of observations (32,800 in 2008 and 55,400 in 2010) provide sufficient samples of the non-immigrant sub-population, with 339 non-citizen respondents in 2008 and 489 in 2010. For the 2008 CCES, we also attempted to match respondents to voter files so that we could verify whether they actually voted.

How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

Estimated Voter Turnout by Non-Citizens
2008 2010
Self reported and/or verified 38 (11.3%) 13 (3.5%)
Self reported and verified 5 (1.5%) N.A.
Adjusted estimate 21 (6.4%) 8 (2.2%)

Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.

We also find that one of the favorite policies advocated by conservatives to prevent voter fraud appears strikingly ineffective. Nearly three quarters of the non-citizens who indicated they were asked to provide photo identification at the polls claimed to have subsequently voted.

An alternative approach to reducing non-citizen turnout might emphasize public information. Unlike other populations, including naturalized citizens, education is not associated with higher participation among non-citizens. In 2008, non-citizens with less than a college degree were significantly more likely to cast a validated vote, and no non-citizens with a college degree or higher cast a validated vote. This hints at a link between non-citizen voting and lack of awareness about legal barriers.

There are obvious limitations to our research, which one should take account of when interpreting the results. Although the CCES sample is large, the non-citizen portion of the sample is modest, with the attendant uncertainty associated with sampling error. We analyze only 828 self-reported non-citizens. Self-reports of citizen status might also be a source of error, although the appendix of our paper shows that the racial, geographic, and attitudinal characteristics of non-citizens (and non-citizen voters) are consistent with their self-reported status.

Another possible limitation is the matching process conducted by Catalyst to verify registration and turnout drops many non-citizen respondents who cannot be matched. Our adjusted estimate assumes the implication of a “registered” or “voted” response among those who Catalyst could not match is the same as for those whom it could. If one questions this assumption, one might focus only on those non-citizens with a reported and validated vote. This is the second line of the table.

Finally, extrapolation to specific state-level or district-level election outcomes is fraught with substantial uncertainty. It is obviously possible that non-citizens in California are more likely to vote than non-citizens in North Carolina, or vice versa. Thus, we are much more confident that non-citizen votes mattered for the Minnesota Senate race (a turnout of little more than one-tenth of our adjusted estimate is all that would be required) than that non-citizen votes changed the outcome in North Carolina.

Our research cannot answer whether the United States should move to legalize some electoral participation by non-citizens as many other countries do, and as some U.S. states did for more than 100 years, or find policies that more effectively restrict it. But this research should move that debate a step closer to a common set of facts.

Jesse Richman is Associate Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Old Dominion University, and Director of the ODU Social Science Research Center. David Earnest is Associate Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Old Dominion University, and Associate Dean for Research & Graduate Studies in the College of Arts and Letters.

Boehner Slams Preparation for Executive Amnesty ‘Unacceptable’

Obama Administration Quietly Prepares ‘Surge’ Of Millions Of New Immigrant IDs
Inform

“The Speaker has made perfectly clear to the president that it is unacceptable for him to unilaterally re-write immigration law on his own and the Speaker will never support this type of action,” Boehner spokesman Kevin Smith said.

The comment is the most significant repudiation since Breitbart News reported that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is seeking vendors for “surge” capacity to handle future immigration policy changes.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) said the draft request for proposal, issued Oct. 6 but heretofore unnoticed, shows the president “is preparing to violate the Constitution again,” and other Republicans have denounced it as well.

USCIS has still not offered any official comment about the solicitation, nor has the White House. A USCIS official told the Daily Mail the agency is planning the “surge” capacity “’in case the president makes the move we think he will.”

The request for proposals says the agency will need a minimum of four million cards per year. In the “surge,” scenario in 2016, the agency would need an additional five million cards – more than double the baseline annual amount for a total of 9 million.

“The guaranteed minimum for each ordering period is 4,000,000 cards. The estimated maximum for the entire contract is 34,000,000 cards,” the document says.

The agency is buying the materials need to construct both Permanent Residency Cards (PRC), commonly known as green cards, as well as Employment Authorization Documentation (EAD) cards which have been used to implement President Obama’s “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (DACA) program. The RFP does not specify how many of each type of card would be issued.

Jessica Vaughan, an immigration expert at the Center for Immigration Studies and former State Department official, said the document suggests a new program of remarkable breadth.

The RFP “seems to indicate that the president is contemplating an enormous executive action that is even more expansive than the plan that Congress rejected in the ‘Gang of Eight’ bill,” Vaughan said.

America Imagine The World Without Her

 

america imagine without

The Newest Major Motion Picture by

DINESH D’SOUZA

sponsored by the

“We the People” Show

on

WKMNEWS.COM

(here’s our ad:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na-MHkSWsyk)

FREE SHOWING

Saturday, October 25 at 11 a.m.

 Ohio Theater on Main Street in Madison

Introductions to this important movie by:

CONGRESSMAN LUKE MESSER

State Senator JIM SMITH

State Representative JIM LUCAS

State Representative RANDY FRYE

State Representative Candidate Lisa Seng Shadday

“How badly we need a Washington, a Lincoln, a Reagan.

Well, we don’t have them, but we do have us.” ~Dinesh D’Souza

dinesh dsouza

 

 

 

Opposing John Boehner for Speaker Could Come With Repercussions

From the DailySignal.com  Conservatives planning to buck the status quo and oppose the reelection of John Boehner as House speaker have received a warning shot. Sources on Capitol Hill say dissenters could be stripped of their committee assignments should they fail to support the two-term speaker.

There haven’t been any public challenges to Boehner, though reports have surfaced that Republicans who vote against him on the floor would be punished.

The process will play out after the Nov. 4 midterm elections when the Republican conference holds a closed-door vote for majority leader, majority whip and conference chair. Those roles are currently held by Kevin McCarthy of California, Steve Scalise of Louisiana and Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, respectively.

Republicans will also select a nominee for House speaker.

When the 114th Congress convenes in January, all 435 House members will gather to vote publicly for speaker.

>>> 9 Senate Races That Could Tip the Balance of Power

The Republican conference votes on the rules every two years, and any proposed changes would have to be approved by a majority of the caucus.

One former conservative House aide with knowledge of the dealings cited two reasons for lawmakers to issue such a warning to potential dissenters.

First, the former aide told The Daily Signal, threatening conservatives who may not support Boehner could reduce the chances they mount a campaign against him when it comes time to vote for speaker on the House floor.

Second, House Republicans may be using this as an opportunity to reduce the influence of members not viewed as siding with leadership.

One GOP insider told National Journal there could be between 30 and 40 Republican lawmakers who would vote against Boehner.

In an interview with USA Today, Boehner rejected any suggestion Republicans voting against him in January would face repercussions, and confirmed this in a statement to The Daily Signal.

“I don’t support any such effort,” Boehner said. “It’s not a good idea, and isn’t necessary.”

Requests for comment from McCarthy and Scalise went unanswered.

Conservative Dissenters

In 2010, a wave of tea party Republicans were elected to the House, which led to what many Republicans said was a rift between conservatives and the establishment.

Conservative lawmakers such as Reps. Justin Amash of Michigan and Tim Huelskamp of Kansas pushed back against leadership—including Boehner—and maintained strict conservative voting records, sometimes stymying and other times opposing leadership.

Their actions had consequences.

In late 2012, Amash, Huelskamp and Rep. David Schweikert of Arizona were allremoved from key committees for what many said was retribution for their votes. At an event at The Heritage Foundation in December 2012, Amash and Huelskamp said they were blindsided by the news.

“I had to read it in the newspapers,” Amash said at the time.

>>> Conservatives Predict Boehner Won’t Be Back as Speaker Next Year

Their removals stood in contrast to a deal leadership made with incoming freshman in 2010, when the tea party wave was elected to the 112th Congress. Then, Huelskamp said members were encouraged to “vote their conscience and their district” as long as they made leadership aware of their votes before casting them.

But Huelskamp said leadership reneged on that deal and instead ranked members based on their votes. Those who “didn’t get a high enough score,” he said in 2012, were “punished.”

Huelskamp himself was removed from the Budget and Agriculture committees, despite his extensive knowledge of the agriculture industry as a former farmer. Similarly, Schweikert was stripped of his spot on the Financial Services Committee despite his business background.

Electing the Speaker

Boehner was up for re-election as speaker at the start of the 113th Congress, but he was met with pushback from conservatives in the conference.

When the entire chamber gathered to vote, several lawmakers bucked the status quo and failed to back the Ohio Republican.

Six Republicans voted for other GOP members, and others either abstained or simply said “present.” Reps. Paul Broun of Georgia and Louie Gohmert of Texas cast votes for outgoing Republican Allen West of Florida. North Carolina’s Walter Jones supported former Comptroller General David Walker, who served from 1998 to 2008.

The speaker of the House does not have to be a sitting member of Congress.

Mixed Messages

In the 2014 elections, Republicans are working to pick up 11 seats, bringing the total number of GOP members to 245—the largest Republican majority since Harry Truman’s presidency. The campaign to achieve such a goal has been dubbed the “Drive to 245.”

Political strategists such as Nathan Gonzales of the Rothenberg Political Report say it’s possible.

Support for Boehner as speaker, though, is not inevitable. Several GOP congressional hopefuls have refrained from announcing support for the top Republican while campaigning.

Dave Brat, the Virginia Republican who ousted former then-Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the state’s June Republican primary, refused to endorse Boehner in interviews with both The Washington Post and The Washington Times. Instead, he vowed to continue running on principles, not personalities.

>>> Boehner: Ground Troops Needed to Defeat ISIS ‘Barbarians’

Boehner has hit the campaign trail with GOP candidates, including state Rep. Marilinda Garcia, who is running against U.S. Rep. Ann Kuster, the incumbent Democrat in New Hampshire’s 2nd District. The speaker was on hand to help Garcia raise money.

Within his own conference, some conservative firebrands have committed to supporting Boehner should he remain the only viable candidate for speaker.

“I don’t see much of a challenge mounting, and I suspect that there won’t be a challenge,” Rep. Raúl Labrador of Idaho said during Conversations with Conservatives last month. “However, if we don’t take the Senate, I think there might be rumblings as to maybe we need a new direction as a Republican Party.”

Labrador mounted a campaign for majority leader following Cantor’s loss, but McCarthy defeated him in June.

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence Creates New ‘Data CZAR’ to Manage Student and Workforce Data

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R), considered to be a 2016 presidential hopeful, is headed to New Hampshire this month to do some campaigning. Though fond of presenting himself as a conservative, Pence’s “rebrand” of the Common Core standards, his decision to accept Medicaid expansion, and, more recently, his creation of a new state office that will manage an expanded network of student and workforce data, may all place him, instead, in the category of big government progressive.

As Indiana Chalkbeat states, “Indiana is quietly taking steps to position itself for a future where data drives much of what is learned in school.”

Pence’s latest endeavor is the new Department of Workforce Development, with a director nicknamed the state’s “data czar.” The office will manage an expanded network of data from students in grades K-12 and in higher education, as well as workforce data, supposedly to make a connection between what students are learning now and what they will need to know in the future.

Steve Braun will serve as the new department’s “data czar.” A Harvard graduate who is a leader in “business intelligence,” Braun co-authored a bill–while a state representative last year–that created the Indiana Career Councils, yet another government layer that plans to coordinate education and workforce development in 11 regions around the state.

To help schools know what to teach, Indiana apparently needs a lot of data, and the plan for data collection is known as the Indiana Network of Knowledge, reports Chalkbeat. Data from the state Departments of Education and Workforce Development and the Commission on Higher Education will reportedly merge with data tracked by private companies.

Braun dismisses concerns about privacy because the network’s goal, he says, is to study trends rather than individuals.

Pence says he wants Indiana to have a stronger connection between education and the business community.

“I believe its imperative every one of our kids graduates from school prepared to either go onto college or a productive career,” Pence says. “I think Indiana has a chance to really reestablish the importance of career and vocational education.”

Pence’s continued expansion of government in Indiana qualifies him as a “technocratic Progressive,” wrote Joy Pullmann at The Federalist in July.

“Instead of showing how conservatives can cut bureaucracy and expand liberty when given the berth,” she said, “Pence has instead been indicating he’s been in Washington too long, and absorbed its comfort with a well-padded government fed by an attenuating citizenry.”

Pullmann observed that when Federalist publisher Ben Domenech asked Pence whether it was conservative policy to expand Medicaid, “a welfare entitlement to subsidize able-bodied childless adults by taking money from hardworking taxpayers in other states–he said of course it is, or he wouldn’t have proposed it.”

And Pence appears to be on a roll with more big government policies. Last week, he announced the launch of a preschool program designed to serve hundreds of low-income children in five Indiana counties, says Indystar.com.

“I came from the mindset that federal Head Start doesn’t work. That it doesn’t achieve lasting results,” Pence had said. “But it was a learning experience for me as I traveled the state in 2013. I sat on the carpet with the kids, and I talked to people like Ted Maple at Day Nursery. I began to understand the importance of early childhood education in overcoming the effects of poverty.”

Now referring to himself as a “solutions conservative” who supports workable ideas over ideology, Pence thanked Indiana state Sen. Earline Rogers, a “left-of-Obama Democrat,” as Indystar states, for promoting his preschool initiative, and then said Rogers was actually instrumental in helping to change his thinking on the issue.

Pence’s deception that he is the first governor to “repeal” the Common Core standards, when he merely hurriedly “rebranded” them, is an act true conservatives will not likely forget as he continues to “evolve” toward the 2016 presidential campaign.

In fact, as Breitbart News’ Matthew Boyle reported Monday, another presidential hopeful, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), told Boyle, “If there’s a Republican candidate out there–let’s just say there’s a hypothetical one that’s for Common Core. I’m saying that that hypothetical candidate that’s for Common Core probably doesn’t have much chance of winning in a Republican primary.”

Quoting from the legislation that had Indiana, at least ostensibly, abandon the controversial standards, Erin Tuttle of Hoosiers Against Common Core told Breitbart News in April, “For all Pence’s claims of federalism, his signature legislation removing Indiana from the Common Core required the new standards to ‘comply with federal standards to receive a flexibility waiver.’”

“His Hoosier process was predicated on satisfying the federal government, thus resulting in a rebrand of the Common Core,” Tuttle added. “This was all about delivering a predetermined result, a set of standards with almost perfect alignment to the Common Core to satisfy the US Department of Education.”

America’s Road to Martial Law ~~~~~~~ Riot

This Scenario came from a Black Colonel who graduated from the Academy and is a strong Christian. His identity must be protected.

He said, most branches of the service routinely engage in war “games” and come up with strategies and tactics on how to handle every type of military conflict and scenario that can be imagined. One of the big new battle scenarios being actively discussed in the military recently is how to handle civil unrest and fighting in U.S. cities.

What will the Army do if called in to fight armed civilians in the streets of the United States? How will that urban warfare be conducted? Will troops be able to fire upon other American citizens when the troops take an oath to protect American citizens?

He said many in the military are discussing the very real possibility that Obama will attempt to stay in office beyond two terms. It is being speculated that Obama will do this by declaring a state of martial law. The easiest way to declare martial law is when there is massive civil unrest and riots throughout the U.S. Thus, it is believed that Obama, and his regime, will intentionally create a situation of massive civil unrest.

Some believe he has already started to implement that strategy by forcing Obamacare on everyone (when the populace did not ask for it and less than 300 people in power voted for it). Perhaps the Obama Administration is not too concerned over the totally dysfunctional Obamacare website and the additional fact that millions will be dropped from their existing insurance policies which they already had and liked.

The Obama Administration may not care if getting health care becomes more difficult and more expensive because it is all leading toward civil unrest. It is believed by some that Obamacare will only get worse and worse, and then in 2 to 3 years when people have a very difficult time getting medical treatment for themselves or their loved ones, people will become enraged.

Moreover, it is being speculated that around the same time when the frustration levels over Obamacare are hitting a critical point in 2 to 3 years, there will be a “glitch” in the welfare payment (or EBT) payment system. The tens of millions who rely on EBT handouts to sustain themselves will be cut off. The overwhelming majority of the EBT recipients are Black.

The Obama regime will then blame the “glitch” on the Republicans, i.e., Republicans froze government spending which “forced” Obama to suspend EBT payments. (Obama will intentionally drive spending up and up uncontrolled knowing full well that one day the Republicans will be backed into a corner and finally vote for a freeze in spending.)

Obama will create heightened racial tension by telling everyone that the White Republicans are racially motivated and did this to hurt the Black community. This manufactured racial tension, combined with growing tensions over the then-collapsing medical coverage due to Obamacare, will result in race wars and civil unrest. People will take to the streets.

Once the race wars, civil unrest, and violence becomes pervasive throughout the U.S., Obama will declare martial law and take over. Elections can, and will, be postponed under martial law.

This possibility is clearly being analyzed and discussed inside the military because such a martial law strategy is nothing new. Tyrannical and dictatorial leaders in the past have done the martial law strategy many times.

He noted that dictators such as Stalin, Mussolini, and Hitler did basically the identical thing. He went on to say that one of the most recent examples of this strategy was when Marcos declared martial law in the Philippines from 1972-1981 due to civil unrest. The Philippines had democratic elections up until that time.

When martial law was declared, the Philippine constitution was suspended, its Congress dissolved, all elections were suspended, and Marcos remained in power for years beyond his elected term. The alleged “terrorist bombings” that occurred in the Philippines, which lead to Marcos declaring martial law, have always been questioned and never proven to be the acts of actual terrorists. Note: I was in the Philippines the night Marcos declared victory in the 1969 election and witnessed some of the violence just three years before Marcos declared martial law.

Many believe this is the real reason behind the purgings of military generals. The older members of the military, and especially its generals and leaders, tend to be more conservative and they believe in the Constitution—and following the Constitution.

Thus, a tyrant and dictator needs to get rid of these military leaders before a state of martial law is declared if the rising dictator wants the military to follow along and do what the dictator says. Due to the loss of many experienced military leaders the past few years, the military is now being run and guided more and more by younger, inexperienced leaders.

The type who won’t really know what to do if martial law was declared. Moreover, he noted that there is a growing mindset throughout the military now that every soldier needs to keep quiet and just follow along with what Obama says and wants to do or you will be fired and your military career ruined.

Everything points to the U.S. Martial Law scenario. All federal agencies including Social Security, are arming themselves to the hilt. The military is giving armored vehicles to civilian police departments. While Obama promised to bring America together, he has in fact become the Agitator in Chief. Obama does nothing to strengthen America and everything he does is designed to weaken our country, our military, our economy and our standing in the world. I do not believe Barack Obama will give up power to Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Allen West or anybody else. I am convinced he will hold on to power through any means available. What are your thoughts?

Who Cares If Your Congressman Doesn’t Read Your Letter?

By Jim Babka, President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

Here are six fantastic reasons you should send them anyway!

The original version of this message was sent out March, 2013. I consider it one of the ten or so most important messages I’ve ever written. Moreover, it deserves frequent repeating. So, this updated version is being republished today.
Does Congress read your letters?

Not much and not well. It shows in the stupid canned responses they send. I write my letters for other reasons, and you should too…

SIX REASONS YOU SHOULD WRITE CONGRESS

1. Notice can still be served to politicians who don’t read their mail.

Can you avoid the responsibility of paying your bills by refusing to open your mail? Neither can Congress avoid its responsibility by failing to read your letters.

When you write Congress you put the burden on them.
But when you fail to write Congress the failure lies with you.

Put the burden where it belongs; write Congress.

2. Justify your cause to outside observers.

The Declaration of Independence followed a string of appeals that King George refused to read.

These appeals paved the way for the Declaration. They justified secession to all outside observers. You must do what the Founders did.

Ask for reasonable reforms.
Share your appeals with others so they can see you doing it.

You win either way…

If Congress responds then things improve.
If Congress ignores your reasonable requests then they lose legitimacy, and this paves the way to erect new forms of government.

But you must go through the steps. They cannot be skipped. Do your duty, and enjoy the process!

3. Quantity matters more than eloquence.

We have always said that size matters. Larger forces generally win battles.

Every political controversy resolves down to one question:

You and what army?

4. To get an army, you must recruit.

You must “practice what you preach” to recruit others. If you don’t send your letter, it’s far less likely you can get your friends to do it. But…

With recruitment, we can get so big Congress cannot afford to ignore us. Moreover…

5. When you share your letters to Congress with friends, you actually reach your most important audience.

Here’s a SHOCKING INSIGHT…

You don’t need to convince your Congressperson.

But if you’re sharing your letters with others, then you are reaching people who can and will hear. Let’s face it…

Members of Congress weren’t elected by the Russians nor appointed by Martians. They were given their positions by people you know! So…

What matters most is winning the battleground of your neighbor’s mind, the district of their heart, and the precinct of their conscience.

So…

Let Congress ignore you, until trouble springs on these “representatives” like thieves in the night.

But DO try to persuade your friends. They’re your most important audience.

6. You can make staffers “uneasy.”

Someone on Capitol Hill will read your letter, even if it isn’t your elected rep. Congressional staffers must read your letter to count your position and choose which form letter to send. Congressional staffers are your second target audience.

We want to make these handlers uneasy. Why? Because Congressional staffers hold a lot of the real power. No politician can get anything done without them. So what if these staffers…

were required, by the letter writers you recruit, to confront being an accessory to immoral and evil acts?
lost sleep or dreaded going to work because they felt like accomplices?
became self-conscious, wondering if others thought less of them for associating with the “criminal-political element?”

What if they started lobbying their boss?

What if your letters led them to quit? And if that happened, how much do you think your Congressperson would get done?

NOTE: I caution you on this last point, because we’re not making personal attacks. We don’t believe in initiating force. We’re not trying to hurt these people. But we certainly want them to feel uncomfortable with the coercive and violent actions with which they’ve voluntarily associated themselves.

YOU HAVE POWER. USE IT! Write Congress…

To serve notice — put the burden on them
To share your letters with friends so others can witness your appeals for reasonable reform
So your views can be counted, and make the CapHill crowd uneasy

Use your power now by sending a letter on behalf of our “Write the Laws Act.” https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/write-the-laws/

The hardwired letter reads…

Co-sponsor the “Write the Laws Act” (S 1663 and HR 4343).

You can copy or edit the letter I sent…

You give your law-making power to bureaucrats who write thousands of rules each year. It’s unconstitutional because Article I says Congress should make the laws, not unelected bureaucrats.

* Unconstitutional means its illegal
* Illegal means it’s criminal
* The Write the Laws Act, sponsored by Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Steve Stockman, would end this criminality

I ask you to co-sponsor this REASONABLE reform. Failure to do so will make you illegitimate in my eyes.

Send your letter using Downsize DC’s free Educate the Powerful System. https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/write-the-laws/

Serve notice to Congress. Let others see you doing it. Share your letter with friends. Ask them to duplicate your action. Use your power!

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

If you found this article valuable please share it. You can follow Jim Babka on Twitter @JimBabka

Megyn Kelly Played This Video from George W. Bush and Liberal Heads are Exploding

On FOX News’ The Kelly File  on Thursday, host Megyn Kelly played an eerily prophetic, timely, and applicable video from George W. Bush in 2007 warning about the consequences of pulling out of Iraq too early (WATCH VIDEO BELOW).

Bush was roundly criticized for the comments at the time, but considering the horrific events in the Middle East excalating while Obama works on lowering his golf handicap, Bush’s words have even deeper impact.

“As we track these new terror concerns at home and overseas, we are reminded of warnings we heard back in 2007,” Kelly stated.

“America was fighting the Iraq War; President Bush had just ordered U.S. troops to surge in Iraq, and critics were demanding that the U.S. withdraw the troops, when President Bush issued this frighteningly accurate, as it turns out, assessment of what would happen if we did that,” Kelly said introducing the short video clip.

Here’s former President George W. Bush’s prophetic warning from July 12, 2007 about pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq too early (emphasis added):

“I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we’re ready would be dangerous, for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States.

It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we would be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we would allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. 

It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.”

And how did current President Barack Obama refer to this new enemy, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), or as he likes to more politicially-correct term, ISIL? The organization of Muslim Brotherhood related Islamic terrorists who are beheading our reporters and have taken over large areas of the Middle East?

In an interview with The New Yorker,  in January of this year, Obama said:

“The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant. I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.”

WATCH BELOW: