Monday, December 27, 2010

Democratic Party drops the ball on the meaning of Fair Reflection.

I was looking in the democratic party bylaws for the definition of Fair Reflection. The democratic party definition of "fair reflection" seems to define everybody by how they were born, and not by how they live their lives. This is a really big deal, and offensive as well.

It appears the democratic party judges you by the color of your skin, not by the ethics and character you develop or already possess. 
The democratic party defines fair reflection as fairly reflecting all races, ethnicities and both sexes within the party. However, nothing is said about fairly reflecting those whose daily responsibilities to their family, relatives and community consumes every waking hour and leaves them vulnerable to not being represented in caucus voting states.

You see, fair reflection only applies in states that generally vote democrat and put on actual primaries. Caucus contests are usually reserved for republican leaning states and fairly reflecting the democrat voters in those states does not appear to be as important to the democrat party.

Character apparently does not matter to the democrat party, so people with character, who live in a caucus state, will be IGNORED by the democrat party.

This is very disconcerting to me. You could be the most responsible, caring, community driven person alive, and not qualify for fair reflection within your own state if you live in a caucus contest state. This is just an outrage and explains a lot about the ethically bankrupt higher ups in the democratic party.

Saturday, September 18, 2010

Ohio Voters sue for the right to have Fair Reflection.

Four Ohio residents have asked their own state to fairly reflect the will of the voters by requring vote by mail costs be the same in each and every Ohio county. The irony is the term fair reflection never came up in the article even though that is what these four residents are basically asking for.

This is a very important case that could have national voting implications. Click here to read all about it.

In 2008 lawsuits were filed in Nevada over how the caucuses were being run. The judge in the case basically held the position that even if the democratic caucuses were being unfairly run (and they apparently were favoring Barack Obama in an unfair manner), it was not up to a judge to fix the problem, but rather the democratic party!

The judges thinking makes sense. If the democratic party is that fouled up, it's not up to a judge to make the democratic party run fairer contests, instead, people can choose to vote another party.

However, in this instance, the lawsuit relates to ALL VOTERS, and so a judge may see the necessity in stepping in and making the ease of mail by voting be the SAME for all voters irrespective of which county they live in.

Sunday, July 11, 2010

We Will Not Be Silenced Documentary Gets New Life on Fox News.

HillBuzz has devoted an article to the documentary "We Will not Be Silenced" which is helping to chronicle the cheating and thuggish tactics that went on during the 2008 democratic election process along with the presidential contest as well.

And there is this thread on HillBuzz article about We Will Not Be Silenced.

I wanted to contribute to the article but for some reason my comments don't seem to get through however don't let that deter you from contributing any bad experiences you had during the 2008 elections.