Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   1 comment
Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

How close are we to the streets? The Supreme Court just made that day closer.

By       Message Ed Tubbs     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Author 7671
Become a Fan
  (11 fans)
- Advertisement -

There's only one reason anyone or any people adhere to fair elections within a democratic umbrella for determining who will govern: The alternative risks bloody upheaval, and as John Bradford observed while observing a condemned prisoner being carted to the scaffold, "There but for the grace of God goes John Bradford."

You can never know for sure when YOU might be among those tossed out, and it's much healthier on the neckline that the change in political fortunes occur via the ballot box.

- Advertisement -

Remove fairness and removed is the rationale for not taking to the streets; angry, armed, and seeking opponents to terminate "with extreme prejudice."

The manipulating hands of the Democratic Party have not been always clean; mid-twentieth century Chicago being perhaps the most notorious example of just how corrupt corrupt boss rule can be. Over the ensuing years, the GOP has become exquisitely more sophisticated, burying the underlying notion of clean beneath layers of the most patently disingenuous and foul-smelling self-righteous garbage. Legislation requiring the presentation of a government issued photo-ID at the polling place, all to thwart voter fraud, is the most supreme example of what I'm talking about here.

January 9, this year, I posted the following:

"I caught the press conference, held outside the United States Supreme Court by Todd Rokita, Indiana's Secretary of State, and Karen Handel, Georgia's Secretary of State. (click here It was a conference that only a Theodore Geisel, Dr. Seuss, or Stanley Kubric, or George Orwell could confect. These two very white Republicans from very Republican states were commenting on the case they'd presented, the crying need that their respective state laws requiring the presentation by every voter at the polling place, of state issued identification cards, be upheld.

- Advertisement -

"Both claimed that while their state could not produce, as evidence in support of their case, even one instance of voter fraud, that didn't mean voter fraud - folks going to the polls to cast a ballot on false premises of entitlement to the privilege - wasn't rampant. In fact, the fact that no case existed both claimed was all the more reason such a law was needed. 'We know it's happening. Just because we can't prove it doesn't mean it doesn't exist and that it's not a serious problem. That we can't prove it is why we need a law that will enable us to find out to what extent the process has been corrupted.' (By the way Number 1, (1.) to be registered to vote, one must present valid identification at the registrar's office, and (2.) the need for identification is 100% absent for absentee ballots.)

Yesterday, the Republican United States Supreme Court upheld the lie. To "Of course I'll still love you in the morning," "The check is in the mail," "We feel you'd be happier working for some other company," add "It's to eliminate voter fraud."

Perhaps what I loathe most about the GOP's efforts in the Court and in those states and others is the insult: I'm so utterly stupid that they can tell me anything, no matter how obviously outrageously nonsensical, and I'll believe it.

News bulletin to the GOP: I'm not.

Look, if Republicans really gave a gnat's piss about election "fraud" they'd be up in arms, coming down hard on (A.) "caging," (B.) on the voter-roll purgings that transpired in 2000, 2004 and 2006, and (C.) the sudden and mysterious disappearance of tens of thousands to perhaps as many as hundreds of thousands of cast ballots - all of which occurred in Democrat-leaning precincts! They would raise a hue and cry about the firing of the US Attorneys who were fired only because they did not "yas-suh, yas-suh" and bake the cases against targeted Democrats. Now those were clearly cases of trying to rig and successfully rigging the electoral process. But I'll tell you: their silence there is oh so telling.

The reasons these tactics are dangerous to all our health are two. One, it's divisive. It splits us into very cacophonous and hostile factions at exactly the moment when the extraordinarily complicated difficulties facing us require us to be calm-headed and contemplative in pursuit of equitable solutions. Two, taken much farther, to the streets in quest of economic, legal, and political justice may well be perceived by some or many as their only remaining available remedy. And do not forget that violently to the streets is enshrined in our Declaration of Independence as a legitimate path, when all others can be seen as exhausted.


- Advertisement -

Let's bottom-line this, okay. Your Republican relatives and associates, ethically, are bottom-dwelling slime. Want proof? If and when they suggest, "Everyone does it, Democrats are just as guilty," ask them for the first scintilla of evidence. Do not permit them to take you back to the 60s and before, in the South. Those Democrats are all 100% Republicans today! Rather, who was responsible for the Willie Horton ad? Who painted triple amputee, Vietnam War hero, Max Cleland, as insufficiently American? Who sent the rumors flying through South Carolina that Senator John McCain was some philandering sire of a black child? Who stridently accosted all who raised questions concerning the wisdom of invading Iraq as unpatriotic, cut-and-running, un-American cowards? Who developed "caging" and voter-roll purging as political strategies? How did "swiftboating" become the name given to a scurrilous political tactic, and who was responsible for it? And specifically what Democratic Party strategies can they suggest are somehow equivalent?

The most consequent question I ask is, unless the political climate changes rather soon, how far are we from settling our differences violently in the streets, rather than by a ballot box that seeks to be genuinely inclusive, as opposed to excluding?

Next Page  1  |  2


- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

An "Old Army Vet" and liberal, qua liberal, with a passion for open inquiry in a neverending quest for truth unpoisoned by religious superstitions. Per Voltaire: "He who can lead you to believe an absurdity can lead you to commit an atrocity."

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting
/* The Petition Site */
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The Texas Board of Education: America's Taliban.

Refusing The Call; Will selfish Seniors hand over the USA's future to China?

Merry Christmas-- Ho, Ho, Ho What the Hell

Today's McCarthyism. Will we Stand up Against it, or Stand Down?

ANYone who would vote for Sarah Palin is not an American

"The horror, the horror" -- Health Insurance CEOs Testify in Congress