See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Virginia GOP Will Require Voters To Sign ‘Loyalty Oath’
Source:
OpEd News
URL Source: http://www.opednews.com/populum/linkframe.php?linkid=143491
Published: Jan 1, 2012
Author: Elizabeth Hartfield
Post Date: 2012-01-01 15:13:19 by Original_Intent
Ping List: *US INDUSTRIAL WAR MACHINE* Subscribe to *US INDUSTRIAL WAR MACHINE*
Keywords: NAZI Party, UnAmerican, Filthy, Fascists
Views: 285
Comments: 18
Less than a week after announcing that only two GOP presidential candidates qualified to appear on their ballot, the Republican Party of Virginia has adopted a new measure that may leave voters in the state scratching their heads: a loyalty oath. On Wednesday the Virginia State Board of Elections approved a request from the Virginia GOP that will require voters to sign a loyalty oath in order to participate in the state’s presidential primary on March 6. A spokesman for the state’s election board tells ABC News that although some details are still in the works, voters wishing to cast a ballot must take the pledge. “We’re still working out the details for how things will work on election day,” says Justin Riemer, spokesman for Virginia’s State Board of Elections, “but the instructions state that they must sign before voting.” Voters do not register with a party in Virginia; thus the commonwealth’s primary is open to all residents, not just members of the Republican party. The oath, which reads “I, the undersigned, pledge that I intend to support the nominee of the Republican party for president,” is intended to deter non-Republicans from participating in the process unless they are serious about supporting the eventual GOP candidate. “I think there was a desire to try and keep the Republican party for Republicans,” explains Kyle Kondik, a political analyst for the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics. “It’s the one barrier to entry that the Republican party can put up to try and keep voting limited to people in the club.” Kondik points out that the oath, however, is not enforceable from a legal standpoint, since voters are guaranteed the right to a private ballot. “It’s an honor system,” says Kondik. “It doesn’t have any legally binding authority. People can go to the primary, sign the pledge and then vote for their candidate and then vote for Obama or a third-party candidate in the fall.” Calls to the Republican Party of Virginia for comment were not immediately returned. Poster Comment: Of course the real reason for the attempt to limit who votes is that Ron Paul has a lot of support outside of the traditional Country Club NeoCon brainwashed Party Uber Alles crowd. So, what this is is an oblique attempt to cut into the support for Ron Paul and for traditional Constitutional Values.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Original_Intent (#0)
www.flickr.com/photos/pie...ol-59845932@N00/lightbox/
I dont see how this could effect Ron Paul or anyone.
#2. To: Original_Intent (#0)
The pledge is meaningless and unenforceable.
Anyone offended by this post, click here.
 | "The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion." -Albert Camus. |
#3. To: Armadillo (#2)
True that it is not enforceable but it is not meaningless. It is a subtle form of intimidation. Most people are honest and do behave honestly most of the time, and feel bad when they do not. That acts as a natural impediment to an individual who cannot reason around that. Recognizing it as an act of intimidation I would have no moral compunction in acceding to it and then completely ignoring it as a specious attempt to control an election outcome, but that is just me. I dont see how this could effect Ron Paul or anyone.
The pledge is meaningless and unenforceable.
#4. To: Original_Intent, Armadillo, Rotara, Lod, christine, *Constitution Party* (#0)
I have seen this before. The Republican party is using its bag of tricks usually reserved for disrupting third parties. They tried this with AIP, the leadership (republican infiltrators) were requiring loyalty oaths asserting you support and approve of all of their previous actions which were illegal and served to kill the party. On Wednesday the Virginia State Board of Elections approved a request from the Virginia GOP that will require voters to sign a loyalty oath in order to participate in the state’s presidential primary on March 6.
As Gary Lloyd said, "When the government’s boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence."
#5. To: farmfriend (#4)
The Party Apparatchiks are running scared. The ascendancy of Ron Paul's star is their worst nightmare. He is subservient to neither the Banksters or the ZioNAZIs and as such presents a stark contrast between his pro-liberty stance versus the Fascism which has become the norm for the Republicrat Party. I have seen this before. The Republican party is using its bag of tricks usually reserved for disrupting third parties. They tried this with AIP, the leadership (republican infiltrators) were requiring loyalty oaths asserting you support and approve of all of their previous actions which were illegal and served to kill the party.
#6. To: Original_Intent (#5)
I agree. I find it interesting that they have used these dirty tricks to kill any chance of a viable third party only to have the real threat rise from wit hin. Now they have to use them to try and stop the threat. They used the infighting technique against the Bachmann campaign and now this against Ron Paul. One question, where are the civil right voices complaining that this will disenfranchise poor blacks. Oh yes I forgot, blacks don't vote Republican. The Party Apparatchiks are running scared. The ascendancy of Ron Paul's star is their worst nightmare. He is subservient to neither the Banksters or the ZioNAZIs and as such presents a stark contrast between his pro-liberty stance versus the Fascism which has become the norm for the Republicrat Party.
As Gary Lloyd said, "When the government’s boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence."
#7. To: farmfriend (#6)
That is part of RP's brilliance. He knows that a 3rd Party Candidacy is a dead end, and that only from within can he effect the desired change - as things are currently rigged. The obstacles erected to prevent a viable 3rd Party from arising are quite real and quite insurmountable without vastly more money than a 3rd Party could raise for that purpose. So, by practicing Aikido against the hierarchy he has his best chance. While it will likely fall short because of the massive corruption of elections his failure for that reason will make that reality all the clearer. That is in part why the Apparatchiks are so worried - not that Ron Paul might win (they CAN prevent that) but that in preventing him from winning it exposes a lot of the corruption to a much wider view. I agree. I find it interesting that they have used these dirty tricks to kill any chance of a viable third party only to have the real threat rise from wit hin.
#8. To: farmfriend (#6)
And with the bought-off Black "Leaders" (Judas Goats) they will continue to vote overwhelmingly against their own interests. One question, where are the civil right voices complaining that this will disenfranchise poor blacks. Oh yes I forgot, blacks don't vote Republican.
#9. To: Original_Intent (#0)
I'm sure Israel is very appreciative. Virginia GOP Will Require Voters To Sign ‘Loyalty Oath’
I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. - Benjamin Franklin
#10. To: Original_Intent (#3)
Mental reservations do come in handy at times, eh? True that it is not enforceable but it is not meaningless. It is a subtle form of intimidation. Most people are honest and do behave honestly most of the time, and feel bad when they do not. That acts as a natural impediment to an individual who cannot reason around that. Recognizing it as an act of intimidation I would have no moral compunction in acceding to it and then completely ignoring it as a specious attempt to control an election outcome, but that is just me.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Lord Acton
The human herd stampedes on the fields of facts and the valleys of truth to get to the desert of ignorance. Saman Mohammadi
"If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner." Mencken
"..if the military is going to defend our freedoms, then we need freedoms to defend. Our freedoms must be restored before the military can defend them..." Lawrence M. Vance
Você me trata desse jeito só porque eu sou preto. Junior (my youngest son)
#11. To: James Deffenbach (#10)
Well it comes down to a moral and ethical decision. Since the obvious intent of the oath is unethical then the greatest good is to be willing to accept responsibility for signing the unethical prerequisite and then disregarding it as of no weight. Sometimes life presents us with tricky moral questions and how we resolve them is a reflection of our own character. Here the decision is not whether or not to accept the oath but whether or not an oath demanded under what amounts to false pretenses and duress is binding? The obvious intent is to prevent those not already Brainwashed, Kool-Aid drinking, Gut Pardee Mempers from exercising their voice in the decision as to which candidate is best. Therefore what is not at first obvious is resolved - it is more moral and ethical, on balance, to accept the oath while regarding it as a non-binding oath given under duress. Mental reservations do come in handy at times, eh?
#12. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#9)
I'm sure Israel is very appreciative. Ja, Ja. Ve fant honly gut hobedient liddle serffsss who ve can khount hon to fote as dhey are tolt. Virginia GOP Will Require Voters To Sign ‘Loyalty Oath’
#13. To: Original_Intent (#0)
Presumably a pledge to vote Republican in the Presidential election - no matter who is running for any of the parties. I do not think this is legal and I am certain that it is not enforceable (especially considering the secrecy of the ballot). The Virginia legislature, repeatedly, intended for the primaries to be "open" -- that is, everyone (even registered Dems) can vote (if they wish) in the Republican primary. Several states are like this. An attempt by a political party to undermine the public law on this point is very bad form.
#14. To: Armadillo (#2)
elections as a whole are meaningless. if one wants to waste a tuesday in november voting don't piss and moan to me about what a waste of time it was to vote a year after the election.
the most factual thing ever posted by buckeroo
I have no freaking' clue. buckeroo posted on 2010-07-24 21:33:00 ET
#15. To: Shoonra (#13) (Edited)
A party that selected Geeeeeee Duh-bya Boosh as its leader? How could they get much lower? Nominate Obama? An attempt by a political party to undermine the public law on this point is very bad form.
#16. To: Original_Intent (#11)
Yes. When someone wants you to swear to an oath (any oath) one should keep in mind that there is a biblical injunction against taking oaths. Further, when someone supposedly in authority wants you to "swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" one has to ask oneself whether by telling the truth and the whole truth might bring harm to the innocent or perhaps cause him to waive one or more of his rights. I will give an example. Suppose now that they have passed the NDAA and given Obama powers unknown to any actual president--the power to deny Americans of any and all due process and to imprison them just because he doesn't like them--and you knew where someone was that he wanted to imprison "just because" would you have a duty to "tell the truth"? I think not. I think your duty would be to lie because they have no right to the truth and you have no obligation to tell them the truth.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Lord Acton
The human herd stampedes on the fields of facts and the valleys of truth to get to the desert of ignorance. Saman Mohammadi
"If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner." Mencken
"..if the military is going to defend our freedoms, then we need freedoms to defend. Our freedoms must be restored before the military can defend them..." Lawrence M. Vance
Você me trata desse jeito só porque eu sou preto. Junior (my youngest son)
#17. To: Original_Intent (#0)
The problem (?) is that certain of the Republican presidential candidates have already announced their absolute rejection of a loyalty oath. Nobody actually asked them to take an oath, but at least a few of those taking part in the televised debates have announced that if one or another of their rivals gets the nomination instead, they will not vote for him.
#18. To: Original_Intent, farmfriend (#3)
Do you hold Ron Paul supporters in such low esteem?It is a subtle form of intimidation. Most people are honest and do behave honestly most of the time, and feel bad when they do not. That acts as a natural impediment to an individual who cannot reason around that.
Ron supporters will not be intimidated by a meaningless, unenforceable, silly scrap of paper. They have no problem reasoning.
It may deter some people (Democrats with a conscious), but not the Ron supporters. They are smart enough to see this for what it is.
Anyone offended by this post, click here.
| "The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion." -Albert Camus. |
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest