Monday, August 1, 2011
Friday, July 29, 2011
Obama will raise the debt ceiling without Congress
Here's what will happen:
If the debt ceiling is not raised, Obama will raise it himself without Congress.
Isn't it something to be like me and know everything?
If the debt ceiling is not raised, Obama will raise it himself without Congress.
Isn't it something to be like me and know everything?
Monday, July 11, 2011
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Preparing for 2012
Today is July 5, 2011 and we have received no definitive information from our State Chair or his inner circle about strategically preparing the grassroots community and/or the Democratic Party as a collective for the upcoming 2012 elections. I am not trying to be antagonistic or disrespectful in this assertion, but as they say in the streets, “It is what it is”. By my calculations we have about four months in this year to get the grassroots interested in voting. I say four months because November is the beginning of the holiday season and it is highly unlikely that anyone will be interested in politics during that time. My suggestion is that we must formulate a plan of action soon to take advantage of this window of opportunity.
Lee Walter Jenkins
The things I have done up to this point have been to try and encourage individuals to run for office at all levels and collect platform issues that can be used by all the candidates. I am encouraging individuals to run for office, because I believe that my responsibility is to the citizens in my county and not to just the business owners and the politicians.
I believe that it is healthy to have competition in the Primary’s whether you are doing a good job or not. If our elected officials are challenged by those with new ideas and willing to serve, it will make for a more dedicated politician who will understand that he/she is a servant of the entire community and not just the business community and it will also keep our base energized and focused on what is needed to make all of the community better.
I believe that we are losing our votes at the local level. It is the needs that are not being met at the local level that reflects the poor turnout for statewide elections of our Democratic Candidates. If we do not identify and then address those issues that are important to our voters at the local level how do you expect for them to have confidence in you correcting issues at the state level and beyond. And if our state elected candidates don’t take an interest in the injustice that is being done to their constituents at the local level how do you expect them to be excited about voting for you during election time. I don’t know about your county, but in my county apathy is not a voters issue but a politician issue and it does not appear that they want to take responsibility for their insensitivity.
As always, this is just my opinion and that doesn’t make it right.
Answer to Mr Bursey
Mr Bursey,
I am sorry for the delay in answering your e-mail and I also would like to apologize for not attending your Town Hall meeting in Sumter which I was looking forward to attending. My grandmother use to say that excuses are only good for the one who makes them and based upon that I yield my attempt at an excuse for my failures on both issues.
Just for the record, I respect your organization, it's record of achievements and what it is doing and hope to do. My critique (not criticism) was in reference to the content and clarity of your strategy, from a grassroots perspective. It is my belief that we should always be as clear and open with the grassroots as possible, so that they can clearly be aware of the pitfalls as well as the benefits of our strategy. By doing this you create partners in your endeavor instead of unsatisfied customers, who were sold something that turned out to be not what they ordered. Trust and respect don't come quickly and/or easily at the grassroots level, if you lose either you will lose both and without them you cannot do business in the grassroots community.
I was also addressing the lack of an alternate strategy and/or strategies that could be and/or is being deployed individually and/or simultaneously. My e-mail was not meant to make you responsible for an alternate plan nor was I attempting to demean your efforts in the plan that you have constructed. I must say again or, if I have not said it, for the first time your strategy is sound and it is something that has been very successfully worked in the past but the Republicans strategy is also good and it is based on what has worked for you in the past. So based upon this, I feel they have a better than average chance of winning if we limit ourselves to only use your strategy. One thing that I have notice since becoming a part of the Democratic Party here in South Carolina, is that we tend to have a tunnel vision mentality which limits the number of ideas that can or will be used at the same time and thus makes it easier for our opponents to defend against us. We must learn to actively seek and support others with valid ideas and strategies. In doing so this makes it harder for our opponents to successfully defend against us. In war, sports and in life, it is that who is the most diverse in ability is the one who has the overwhelming chance at success. As an individual, intuitively we understand this but as an organization, we have forgot it or was never taught it.
My alternate strategy was and is based on what Governor Perdue touched on in vetoing the Voter ID Bill in North Carolina. Governor Perdue eluded to the fact that she did not feel that the purpose of the Constitution was never intended to prohibit the vote of our citizens. When Michael Bailey in his interview on television, told the interviewer that more whites under the Voter ID Law will be prohibited to vote than minorities, the interviewer was totally surprised. In that moment of surprise lies our future talking points to the white community. There is very few if any whites who would set still for having less rights than minorities and that includes Tea Party, Republican Party and/or Democratic Party. Their are five Amendments dealing with Voting Rights in our Constitution: Amendment XIV, Sections 1 and 2; Amendment XV, Section 1 and 2; Amendment XIX; Amendment XXIV, Sections 1 and 2; and Amendment XXVI. I believe that it is in the first Amendment on our Voting Rights; that is Amendment XIV, Section 1 and 2; that our best defense lies. Amendment XIV, Section 1 states: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Based upon the underlined sentence above, whether you consider your right to vote to be a privilege or not, I certainly do. And because this law infringes on both whites and minorities it impacts on the purpose of this Amendment. Amendment XIV, Section 2 states: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. What this is saying is that if the right to vote is denied or prevented in anyway to a significant portion of the populace then the Representation in this state will also be reduced. This mean that based on your percentages that have been calculated 8% for non-whites and 6% for whites, we will lose around 14% of our voting population because of this law. This also would mean that we would also lose a noticeable amount of our Statewide elected officials, who happen to be mostly Republicans.
Now these are my views, it does not make them right and it does not make them wrong, just my point of view.
Lee Walter Jenkins
Monday, July 4, 2011
The Progressive Network's Short Term Strategy
Lee,
The Progressive Network's short term strategy is to try and derail the photo ID law at the pre-clearance phase. This not only keeps the law from going into effect, but saves an expensive and lengthy court battle which we may lose.
While you are correct that a majority of those identified as registered voters who do not have a DMV ID are white, the percentage of nonwhite (SCEC term) voters without ID is higher (6% of white 8% of nonwhite). However, I don't think should matter if the law applies to whites, if nonwhites have a provably harder time complying with the law.
While we are reaching out to voters of all races who will be impacted by the law, the only consideration for pre-clearance is that the new law not "have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color."
The argument that the law will abridge (lessen) everyone's voting rights is sound, but making it would take an even bigger and more costly law suit that doesn't have the advantages of being covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
There is a distinct possibility that SC will use a rare clause in the Section 5 statute and go directly to US District Court in Washington for a "declaratory judgment" that the new law meets the requirements.
To prepare for ending up in federal court, we are having all the statements from impacted voters notarized as affidavits.
What we need are more first person stories. You can get a Photo ID Toolkit at the Progressive Network's web site (www.scpronet.com) to help find and interview potential victims of the law.
Your observation that the Progressive Network "lack(s) a connection to the Grassroots that will give significance and a base to their efforts," is correct. The organization was founded in 1995 on the need and purpose of helping build a broad-based, statewide movement for social justice. Until the time we have the political power to implement our good ideas, we have to continue to do the long, hard work of movement building.
Besides grassroots organizing around policy issues like money in politics, racial profiling, workers rights and voting issues, our PAC has organized the largest caucus in the SC Democratic Party. The Progressive Caucus has won every motion it proposed at the last 10 Democratic Sate Conventions.
The Network's multi-issue focus on connecting with the grassroots over the past 16 years is arguably the most considered and sustained organizing effort in SC. And just as arguably, not enough.
It's your movement and it belongs to everyone who shares our vision and struggle for a more just and democratic society. We welcome your participation and leadership in the effort.
Brett Bursey
Director, SC Progressive Network
The Progressive Network's short term strategy is to try and derail the photo ID law at the pre-clearance phase. This not only keeps the law from going into effect, but saves an expensive and lengthy court battle which we may lose.
While you are correct that a majority of those identified as registered voters who do not have a DMV ID are white, the percentage of nonwhite (SCEC term) voters without ID is higher (6% of white 8% of nonwhite). However, I don't think should matter if the law applies to whites, if nonwhites have a provably harder time complying with the law.
While we are reaching out to voters of all races who will be impacted by the law, the only consideration for pre-clearance is that the new law not "have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color."
The argument that the law will abridge (lessen) everyone's voting rights is sound, but making it would take an even bigger and more costly law suit that doesn't have the advantages of being covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
There is a distinct possibility that SC will use a rare clause in the Section 5 statute and go directly to US District Court in Washington for a "declaratory judgment" that the new law meets the requirements.
To prepare for ending up in federal court, we are having all the statements from impacted voters notarized as affidavits.
What we need are more first person stories. You can get a Photo ID Toolkit at the Progressive Network's web site (www.scpronet.com) to help find and interview potential victims of the law.
Your observation that the Progressive Network "lack(s) a connection to the Grassroots that will give significance and a base to their efforts," is correct. The organization was founded in 1995 on the need and purpose of helping build a broad-based, statewide movement for social justice. Until the time we have the political power to implement our good ideas, we have to continue to do the long, hard work of movement building.
Besides grassroots organizing around policy issues like money in politics, racial profiling, workers rights and voting issues, our PAC has organized the largest caucus in the SC Democratic Party. The Progressive Caucus has won every motion it proposed at the last 10 Democratic Sate Conventions.
The Network's multi-issue focus on connecting with the grassroots over the past 16 years is arguably the most considered and sustained organizing effort in SC. And just as arguably, not enough.
It's your movement and it belongs to everyone who shares our vision and struggle for a more just and democratic society. We welcome your participation and leadership in the effort.
Brett Bursey
Director, SC Progressive Network
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
While I was gone Part 1
Below is a series of information that was sent in to me in my absence, on the 18th and 20th of June. All the information that we publish is important, but for those who are interested in the New voter ID Law take the time to watch and listen to the interview with Michael Bailey by Newswatch. I included the link last. Please continue to send me your thoughts and information and I will continue to post those that meet the purpose of this Blog.
Lee Walter Jenkins
Lee Walter Jenkins
The South Carolina Voters Association's Position on the New Voter ID Law
"An unjust law is no law at all." - Martin Luther King Jr.
On May 18, 2011, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley signed into law this nation's most disenfranchising voting law since the Jim Crow era Poll Taxes and Literacy Tests. This law was specifically designed to circumvent the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by establishing road blocks and adding additional layers of bureaucratic red tape to the voting process. Its sole intent is to disenfranchise specific demographics that historically vote Democratic.
The SC Election Commission found that 178,175 South Carolinians have voter registration cards but no state issued ID's. If this were the sole problem, it could be addressed through a variety of measures. But, instead of ensuring the integrity of the voting process, this law unfortunately is meant to add stringent qualifications and unnecessary burdens that persons wanting to vote must first maneuver around. This law will potentially create a number of minuscule reasons why one could be denied the issuance of a state ID; thereby making them ineligible to qualify for a voter registration card.
The South Carolina Voters Association sees this law as regressive and unconstitutional. Furthermore, research has shown no documented case of voter fraud in the state of South Carolina. Therefore, this law seeks to solve a problem that does not exist.
We want every citizen to know, whether they stand with us in solidarity or against us in opposition, that we shall oppose this law at every level of government, by any means available, through any course of action; bare any cross, suffer any adversity, accept any consequence, confront any opposition, aide any ally or join any battle to protect the voting rights of all South Carolinians.
Michael Bailey
State Director
South Carolina Voters Association
"I think a woman's place is in the House, the Senate and the Oval Office." - Unknown
South Carolina Voters Association asks that you help support Ms. Kenisha Williams
(Ms. Kenisha Williams speaking at a rally in Fayetteville, NC prior to President Obama's introduction)
The South Carolina Voters Association wants to congratulate one of its very own; Ms. Kenisha Williams, who has been accepted into the Women's Campaign School at Yale University.
Of the 124 members serving in the SC House of Representatives, only 16 are women. Currently, there are no women serving in the State Senate. And, there are no women representing South Carolina in the US Congress or US Senate.
Ms. Williams' journey to success has just begun! She is going to need our genuine thoughts, prayers and an ultimate display of our support. Join me in seeing her dream become reality. Below, please find a direct link to her 'go fund me' account. Any amount is welcomed. Your contribution is a gift and your efforts will help shape not only her future but the future of our state! Together we will make this happen. For more information or to make a secure donation, please go to: http://www.gofundme.com/
Michael Bailey
State Director
South Carolina Voters Association
To the Honorable Senator Graham, I hope this writing finds you in good health and great spirits. Although we have often disagreed on political matters I have always respected and admired you! I am proud to say you are our most reasonable voice in the best interest of the citizens of our great state in the US Senate. I am writing regarding the upcoming troop withdrawal decision from Afghanistan. I usually support our Honorable and duly elected President on matters, having helped nominate him in Denver, Co. immediately following my dear wife's unexpected death in the summer of 2008. After hearing both you and Sen. McCain on Fox News and MSNBC this morning, June 20 I wish to express my opinion on the plan to withdraw our troops.  My only son, Spec. Andrew M. Evatt, US Army received his deployment papers this weekend to report to Afghanistan the second week of July 2011. Andrew will receive the rank of Sargeant upon arriving in Afganistan having already passed all tests and requirements with excellent efforts according to his commanders. It's my understanding his promotion is taking place once on the ground due to his boss wanting to make sure he stays with his guys from Ft. Lewis WA. His deployment papers are for one year and he is a newlywed, but his wife, Abby, is a military BRAT that understands his commitment to our great nation. Sen. Graham, I understand you are in position to know much more than I on the subject. Andrew has no idea I am writing this letter to my friend, Sen. Graham. I am so proud of him having joined the Army only 30 days following his mom's death and about three months after graduating Walhalla High School. It is my hope we can finally pullout after almost a decade of being there. Not only for the sake of my family but for all military families, I hope you will influence Sec. Robert Gates and President Obama in withdrawing our troops in the most timely and safest manner. |
| It is time to stop the needless waste in the death and wounding of our military personnel and the Billions of our tax dollars being spent on this ongoing effort. Afghanistan does not have a strong central government. War lords control geographic and cultural segments of the country. Other able countries have been drawn into senseless wars in Afghanistan to no avail. It is time to withdraw not in defeat but in acknowledgement that Obama got Osama - Mission Accomplished! |
| Respectfully yours, Mike Evatt/ Keowee precinct State Exec. member SCDP (Oconee) Michael Bailey posted in South Carolina Voters Association.
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)