RSS
Obama courts felon vote in Pottstown
This is wrong in so many ways, I hardly know where to begin.
The Barack Obama campaign opened an office in Pottstown this week. Nothing unusual about that. The Obama camp is flush with money, some of it from questionable sources, so it can open an office in just about every city, township or borough in the United States.
If you're walking by the Obama office on High Street in downtown Pottstown, you may notice a sign in the window that encourages people to register to vote (presumably as Democrats). But right next to the bold letters "REGISTER TO VOTE," there's also this: "FELONS CAN VOTE"
Who in their right mind would be encouraging convicted criminals to register to vote? The Obama campaign for one. Is Obama that worried about the outcome of the Nov. 4 election that he's courting felons?
And why is this particular sign on display in downtown Pottstown? Is the borough known for its large "felon" population? Would the Obama campaign put up a similar sign in a more affluent community?
Pottstown residents should take offense at the implication that "felons" are walking down the street on any given day.
Some people may be under the impression that convicted felons are not allowed to vote. That's not the case in Pennsylvania.
From the Pennsylvania Department of State Web site:
The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania ruled on December 26, 2000, that the Pennsylvania law prohibiting convicted felons from registering to vote for five years after their release from prison is unconstitutional. Consequently, if completing an older version of the Voter Registration Mail Application (VRMA) form, a convicted felon who has been released from prison may make application to register to vote by striking through the felony conviction line at Section 9(2) on the VRMA and signing his or her name.So the law is clear. If you've committed a crime and served your sentence, you are eligible to vote. If you're still doing time, you can't vote. (But that hasn't stopped the Democratic Party from sending volunteers into prisons to register voters. This happened in 2004 right before the Bush-Kerry election.)
[Please note that convicted felons who are incarcerated on the date of a primary or election are not eligible to vote, irrespective of whether they are registered. However, pretrial detainees and misdemeanants are eligible to apply to register to vote and/or to vote by absentee ballot if they otherwise qualify to vote under law.]
There's a certain "win-at-any-cost" mentality among Democrats that is unseemly. Barack Obama may become our next president after Nov. 4, but does he really want the "felon" vote to put him over the top?
I've said before in many posts about Barack Obama that you have look at the company he keeps. Anti-American loons like Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Former members of the Weather Underground terrorist group. Indicted politicians and political contributors from the Chicago political machine. And now convicted felons.
Barack Obama keeps telling us that he's a new style of politician. He can bring the nation together. The rhetoric doesn't match the reality.
Barack Obama voted 97 percent of the time with Democratic leadership in the Senate in 2007, according to Congressional Quarterly. You can't get more partisan than that.
All that talk about a new style of politics is just talk. Obama craves power. Obama craves influence. He'll take money from anyone. He'll take votes from anyone ... including convicted felons.
Labels: Barack Obama, Democrats, Montgomery County, Photo by Daniel P. Creighton/The Mercury, Voter Fraud
posted by Tony Phyrillas at
1:24 PM
9 Comments:
This is what passes for Editorial Opinion in Pottstown? Sounds like what citizens should really be offended by is being told what to think by someone who apparently has to resort to conjecture to support his negativity.
You're kidding me, right? With the current adminstration we have now, and your obvious bias towards Republicans in this post, it's laughable (as well as hypocritical) for you to chastise ANYONE about the company they keep, or a "win-at-all-costs" attitude. In addition, with a good part of the Bush administration living as unconvicted felons, you have some nerve.
Moreover, the sign is simply clearing up a false assumption, that felons can't vote. You ask why would we want "convicted" felons to vote. 10% of the current death row population is estimated to be innocent. One can only imagine how many people who are convicted of non-capital felonies are also innocent. In addition, since study after study points to the rampant racism in our supposedly "blind" judicial system, it's quite likely that a far larger majority of BLACK "convicted" felons are innocent. Remember, "convicted" is the key word.
Finally, why do you assume that people who are convicted of felonies can't vote as intelligently as people who aren't? Can't people change? Learn from their mistakes? If we don't believe that our prison system, as it stands, works to rehabilitate prisoners (and I certainly don't in most cases), then perhaps it's time to rethink that whole system.
Besides, look how many non-felons voted in a second Bush Administration--4 years later were those people I'd say made an intelligent decision? No way. (Of course, I'm ignoring the fact that the electronic voting machines were tampered with and that Black Americans in Ohio/Florida were purposefully targeted to stop them from voting--by more of those "non convicted felons" by the way, so that Bush could win}.
If you're going to blog, blog thoroughly. Your blog leaves miles and miles of holes in your arguments and rests on fallacious assumptions.
What is "wrong in so many ways" about letting people, including felons, know their rights and the law?
What seems wrong, Tony, is your desire to see felons punished beyond their sentences and kept uninformed as to their rights.
You know something? I'm a law abiding person with a college education and a good job. I know several people who have made mistakes and are considered convicted felons. They have jobs and families that they take care of. I find it offensive that you're making a big deal out of something so trivial. If the law says they can vote why shouldn't they be informed of that? You seem to be grasping at straws, searching for something to drag the Obama campaign down. You have made your self look like a complete fool. You are a prime example of why the press is considered biased and untrustworthy.
There is so much at stake in this election that we must keep in mind the IMPORTANT issues.
An educational poster of factual information is not at issue.
I ask that you stick to the facts and allow your readers to make decisions for themselves.
Let's see - conjecture, overt bias, false affrontery, trying to create a controversy, and lies of omission. Yep sounds like somebody who has enjoyed the administration of the past eight years.
I knew I'd take heat from Obama supporters for daring to criticize "The Chosen One," but I'd like to hear a good explanation from one of you on why Obama is courting felons in a town like Pottstown but his campaign wouldn't dare post a similar sign in an affluent community like West Chester.
I can't speak for Obama supporters, as I decided months ago to vote against Obama, but the facts on the ground show that, compared to West Chester, Pottstown is disproportionately made up of people who have acquired felony records as a result of the dangerously corrupt drug war. For a law and order perspective on why the drug war contributes to this problem, see Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.
Rich white people don't get felonies for possession or for being in the vicinity when someone commits a felony. Google can help you find out how black people get sentenced to prison at much higher rates than white people, and how poor people lose in the system much more easily than affluent people. The data and analyses are there, but we're not your research staff, Tony!
Properly, I think the sign should have read "EX-FELONS". No, there is nothing wrong with advertising the constitutional right to vote to a class that may be unaware of recent developments changing its status, the felons being in a similar role to freed slaves during Reconstruction.
Tony,
It is almost comical how you make assumptions with no reasoned basis. Barack Obama does not personally approve or disapprove what is posted in every window of every campaign office. However, I believe that Senator Obama really does want everyone to get involved in the political process. In fact, that has been a cornerstone of his candidacy. Registering more people and engaging them in the process is a strength of democracy not a weakness. FYI: If he is the "chosen one” then it is only because "the people" have so decided. Remember the preamble, "we the people, in order to form a more perfect union..." We have had 8 long years with a concrete, black and white non-thinker. America deserves and should demand a thoughtful President with deep intellect. Stop and think of the parallels between Bush and McCain. 1. Answers complex questions with yes and no. 2. Super rich background, privileged upbringing. 3. Graduated very close to the bottom of his class. 4. Think the war in Iraq was a good idea. 5. Cheated on his wife with a much younger woman. Oh, sorry, that is just Senator McCain, I think. If you really think that McCain would be a better President then make the case for him rather than against the other candidate. For me, I am going with the smartest and sharpest person in the race. Barack Obama is clearly the superior mind, diplomat and statesman in the race.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home