Obama For America, claims military shouldn’t receive special treatment

Last week:

While I was on vacation and out of the country, I was checking my Facebook feed and came across a Facebook post sharing the above picture. After reading it I promptly shared the above photo.

Two days Later:

A friend of mine commented on it, a friend whom for the purposes of this blog will remain anonymous. The comment read as follows:
“I don’t get involved in poltical BS, but thats wrong. Repubs in Ohio removed the 3 day early voting for everyone but military, obama is sueing to give it back to everyone, not just the military.”

After Reading this I became curious and frustrated. Curious that I may have unknowingly disbursed false information and I was frustrated with the fact my friend was accusing me publicly instead of a private message.

Two Days Ago:

I had finally finished researching the topic and posted my response which is listed below {all original grammatical errors were included to maintain authenticity of the FB comment}:

“Your right [Anonymous], almost word for word what the ObamaBidden Campaign website said about the issue, not that you went there but rather it was one of the sources I encountered while researching the matter. I also checked snopes, politifact, and
FactCheck and they all agreed with you as well as Obamas campaign; via a play on words. Before moving onward let us set aside the fact that before this law only 6 counties IN Ohio actually used early voting and were open on weekends as opposed to the 87 counties which did not or the military members who DID.

First, Obama isn’t filing suit, nor is his DOJ appointee Holder; rather it’s his campaign Obama for America. This Law Suit targets (HB 194: One aspect was to create uniformity in the early voting laws. Voting would be completed by the Friday before the election at 6 PM) and (HB 224: which explicitly gave members of the military and their families the right to vote up until election day under UOCAVA. So why attack HB194 and HB224? Because OFA’s legal argument for discrimination requires them to attack the militarys advantages (HB224) as well as non-militarys disadvantages (HB194). HB194 was designed by Ohio State Legislatures to reform voting practices brought about by the government entity ACORN back in 2008, which of course helped pres Obama, so of course he wants to try and stop reform.

The basis of the suit stems from the 14th amendment which says everyone shall be equal under law but this has never nor ever will be the case with military hence soldiers face harsher punishments in military courts not civilian courts. why then should we not treat them different in the sense of voting as well, where some military members are on the opposite side of the globe as opposed to non military? Funny isn’t it the theme Obamites keep pounding? “Obama wants early voting for all” yet this lawsuit will cause “less but equal early voting for all ”. When HB224 was passed the Ohio Legislation repealed HB194 via SB295; therefore HB224 is the only one on the books so once (SB295[+HB224/-HB194) is overturned there will be NO early voting advantage given to military members. Lets not forget overturning this ruling will establish a precedent for lower courts that could be misconstrued by some hippie judges as to say the 14th amend doesn’t permit discrimination based upon military enlistment therefore no more military discounts, no veteran hiring incentives, no VA hospitals etc it quickly becomes a slippery slope.

The basic underlying fact: Obamas campaign is fighting a state law (passed by state politicians elected by the states citizens) which affords more leniency and rights to military personnel in contrast to nonmilitary citizens, this difference via the 14th amendment is the cause for the suit in that “Obama for America” doesn’t believe the military should be treated special as seen in the OFA complaint section 3 [like it or not this is their legal argument without any spin; sort of like the DOJs legal argument for Obamacare being constitutional because it’s a Tax]. “Obama for America” isn’t publicly saying soldiers shouldn’t receive special treatment just like Obama never called the ACA a tax; OFA is legally arguing it in the court of law. If I’m wrong in this conclusion, then why is The Association of the U.S. Navy (home of JAG judges/attorneys) fighting this “Obama for America” lawsuit alongside 14 other military organizations?

Don’t worry since the original post/poster I shared only causes confusion to some FB friends on the matter of Obamas beliefs and policies. I’ll take it down tomorrow night and work on putting up a more factual anti obama poster. Like how hes raping the 10th ammendment by suing states (Arizona, Texas, Georgia, Florida, Ohio etc.) about their right to protect their borders and protecting their voting booths. Funny! Obama is for the 14th amendment but against the 10th amendment. Which one was part of the bill of rights again? I agree with most progressives and socialists who have claimed the right wing media took the lawsuit out of context by touting “Obama is attacking the military” a much more adequate context would’ve been “Obama is yet again attacking states and their rights to govern themselves”. Its like when the DOJ headed by Holder filed suit against Arizonas ability to protect their borders; the Supreme court said during the suit “It has become clear that federal enforcement priorities—in the sense of priorities based on the need to allocate ‘scarce enforcement resources’—is not the problem here, The President said at a news conference that the new program is ‘the right thing to do’ in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administration’s proposed revision of the Immigration Act.7 Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.”

Boggles the mind? Not mine, mines clear as to what kind of administration the current president is running especially when he constantly exclaimed how he would model his presidency after Lincoln. Wait what and having a president who rapes the 10th amendment like Lincoln is a bad thing? Yes, unless you’re for a president who believed:
-No state may ever sucede from the union for any reason,
-If any state attempts to sucede, the federal government shall invade such a state with sufficient military force to suppress the succession,
– The federal government may require all states to raise militias to be used to suppress the succeeding state or states,
-After the succession is suppressed, the federal government may force the states to adopt new state constitution imposed upon them by the federal military authorities,
-The president may on his own authority and without consent of any other branch of government suspend the Bill of Rights and the writ habeas corpus; or that said president would kill over 300,000 of his own citizens in order to destroy the right to sucession.
Despite the fact Thomas Jefferson wrote papers against such, The supreme court at the time spoke out against doing so, many citizens fled to Canada to avoid conscription into Lincolns army, and last time I checked those(these) atrocities sound awfully similar to the ones listed in our declaration of independence when our founding fathers listed their reasoning for succeeding from England. All I can do is hope being ruled by Obama/Lincoln/King George/Karl Marx is merely ad tempus and will be proven such in November after all…vox populi, vox dei.”

By: Milton L. Jefferson

A Contributor of The Constitutional Knight

About these ads

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s