No products in the cart.

News

Obama Suggests Mandatory Voting For U.S. Citizens

ObamaCleveland

The fascinating thing about this little propaganda drive on the part of the Obama Administration is that he claims such measures are necessary in order to combat the influence of “big money” in politics.  I think a better way to combat big money would be for Obama to remove all the banking elites within his OWN CABINET.  It might be a good start, anyway.  Beyond Obama’s seeming hypocrisy is the problem of collectivism, which is what is actually being promoted here.  The idea that individuals owe allegiance and participation in the state.  Because of the false left/right paradigm, the only real choice Americans have left in politics is to abstain from participation entirely, at least at the national level (local elections offer some opportunities for change) .  Now, the elites want to take away that option from you as well.  You aren’t allowed to abstain.  You aren’t allowed to protest (except in designated zones).  And, you certainly aren’t allowed to revolt.  Eventually, I predict Americans won’t even be allowed to leave the country.  This is what happens when the people become property of the state…

Brandon Smith, Associate Editor

 

They say the only two things that are certain in life are death and taxes. President Barack Obama wants to add one more: voting.

Obama floated the idea of mandatory voting in the U.S. while speaking to a civic group in Cleveland on Wednesday. Asked about the influence of money in U.S. elections, Obama digressed into the topic of voting rights and said the U.S. should be making it easier for people to vote.

Just ask Australia, where citizens have no choice but to vote, the president said.

“If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country,” Obama said, calling it “potentially transformative.” Not only that, Obama said, but universal voting would “counteract money more than anything.”

Disproportionately, Americans who skip the polls on Election Day are younger, lower-income and more likely to be immigrants or minorities, Obama said. “There’s a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls,” he said in a veiled reference to voter identification laws in a number of states.

Less than 37 percent of eligible voters cast ballots in the 2014 midterms, according to the United States Election Project. And a Pew Research Center study found that those avoiding the polls in 2014 tended to be younger, poorer, less educated and more racially diverse.

At least two dozen countries have some form of compulsory voting, including Belgium, Brazil and Argentina. In many systems, absconders must provide a valid excuse or face a fine, although a few countries have laws on the books that allow for potential imprisonment.

 

READ MORE HERE:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/19/obama-floats-making-voting-mandatory-calling-it-potentially-transformative/

0

Brandon Smith

Veteran’s Day Membership Drive

4 comments

  1. Do We vote for the right hand or the left hand to slap Us with?
    The Criminals are trying to force the children to vote as a requirement to graduate.

    Forced license and permits to work on Our land(America) and homes, forced citizenship, forced heath-mental care, forced taxes(extortion), forced voting, forced obedience! Our overlords say we have Freedom “ha ha ha” liars! What is next forced worship?

    Vote for Lawful Criminals and legalized Crime!
    No, We Will not be Force to vote for Crooks and justify their crimes. We are done playing their game!
    Vote for Forced Revolt!

  2. I really, REALLY hate that we do not have a Grand Jury Investigation going into Obama, Ogden, the last two elections (Really those back to Bush 1 at least) because we do have the constitutional right to use one to find out if anything they have done is unlawful. If found to be so, then to charge them and prosecute. It is OUR right, but moreso, it IS our duty.

    The Preamble to the US Constitution says, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    This means that the people themselves are the last word on all of those who serve within the branches of our governments, though that “last word” must also be “in Pursuance thereof” the US Constitution.

    “The grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right. In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people”.

    “Thus, CITIZENS HAVE THE UNBRIDLED RIGHT TO EMPANEL THEIR OWN GRAND JURIES and present “True Bills” of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a “buffer” the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.”

    “The grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think it clear that, as a general matter at least, no such “supervisory” judicial authority exists. The “common law” of the Fifth Amendment demands a traditional functioning grand jury.”

    “Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. The grand jury’s functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised.”

    “THE GRAND JURY ‘CAN INVESTIGATE MERELY ON SUSPICION THAT A LAW IS BEING VIOLATED, OR EVEN BECAUSE IT WANTS ASSURANCE THAT IT IS NOT .’ It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even “the precise nature of the offense” it is investigating. The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day-to-day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge. It swears in its own witnesses and deliberates in total secrecy.”

    “Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said the 5th Amendment’s constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body ‘acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge”

    “Given the grand jury’s operational separateness from its constituting court, it should come as no surprise that we have been reluctant to invoke the judicial supervisory power as a basis for prescribing modes of grand jury procedure. Over the years, we have received many requests to exercise supervision over the grand jury’s evidence-taking process, but we have refused them all. “it would run counter to the whole history of the grand jury institution” to permit an indictment to be challenged “on the ground that there was incompetent or inadequate evidence before the grand jury.” Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority said In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992)

    The way I am understanding this is that we can create an investigative team to see if there was any wrong doing on the part of any we feel needs to be investigated. Anyone disagree with that surmise?

    Though with those who serve within our government today, with the TREASONOUS NSA it will most likely need to be experienced people until we get the traitors and domestic enemies prosecuted. Anyone disagree with that?

  3. If you don’t vote you don’t give away your consent. The government hates it when you don’t vote. I have never voted an I never will. So they can take this idea an shove it. The more they push the more they force many to resist.

  4. A ‘Mandatory Voting Law’ if passed, is when the supposed Two Party system publicly steps out of the closet as one
    to say their marriage vows. Their illicit love/hate relationship (all for show) began previous to 1913. In 1913 Government had divorce papers (Federal Income Tax Act) served against the Declaration of Independence and it’s offspring, US Constitution and its Dependents (We The People). The divorce was finalized in December of 1913 (The Federal Reserve Act) in which Congress surrendered perhaps it’s most important Constitutional obligation, it being Coining/Printing to the Fed. Reserve via the Executive Branch of Government. ‘Mandatory Voting’ is nothing more than usurpation. Authoritarianism, as it demands by law, the support of those who would not otherwise give vote/consent to a corrupt, overbearing Big Government.

Comments are closed.