A Statement Of Encouragement

by Henry A. Miranda, Jr. , 23 April, 2010

 

     A lot of people have expressed to me their serious concerns about the seemingly headlong rush of Congress and the Obama Administration to greatly enlarge the Federal Government’s control of our society. There is some apprehension, however, that the present enthusiasm to “take back our Government” may wane before the upcoming November elections.

     That we are being barraged by a plethora of organizations, (both political and non-political), seeking contributions to help fight this impending nightmare, is heartening. People across the length and breadth of our land are becoming increasingly aware of it, as shown by the intensity of public expression, especially the wide popularity of the so-called “Tea Parties“. It is also encouraging to note the rather broad diversity among participants in the latter: They seem to be rather disperse in terms of their political, educational, racial, or financial circumstances.

     That the stakes are very high is beyond doubt: The developing battle will be hard-fought, especially in view of the fact that the number of voting citizens who are “riding the wagons” is dangerously close to the number who are “pulling them“. Yet it is reassuring to note that few issues faced by our nation from its inception forward have been easy. [Can any worthwhile endeavor in this arena be expected to succeed without a struggle?]

     The realization that this latest battle promises to be decisive seems to be gathering strength. On the other hand, the aura of inevitability presented by the slippage into Socialism on the part of most European nations poses a problem: Can we really avoid following this same path? Perhaps; but it entails several ingredients, among which is recognizing that the powerful new tools of unfettered communication presently at our disposable were utterly inconceivable back when these people began sliding into their present sad state of governance. Paramount among these tools is, of course, the Internet.

     Beyond this technical aspect is a much more fundamental ingredient that promises to energize us for the upcoming contest, just as it invigorated our nation’s growth in world prominence, (which virtually exploded over a relatively short span of time). The key to this most unusual phenomenon lies in a unique principle of governance our Founding Fathers incorporated into the Constitution. The limitation of powers thus imposed on the federal government was the single most effective guarantor of individual liberty that mankind had ever known: It unshackled private enterprise to develop a host of beneficial advances in the quality of life to which we, (and so many others throughout the world), have now become accustomed, such as inexpensive travel, electricity, heavy equipment, agriculture, transportation, refrigeration, the telephone, etc., etc.

     The fantastic success of our nation cannot be explained by this principle alone, however. It must be attributed also to a common belief in ---and dependence upon--- Divine Providence as the spiritual  underpinnings of our Constitution. Hence we dare not shrink from trying to restore this very specific hallmark of our national identity: It has been attacked for far too long across a broad spectrum of entitlements masquerading under the rubric of Justice. [In the words of the Battle Hymn of the Republic, “…His Truth goes marching on”.]

     If in November we fail to stop allowing our bureaucrats to gain more and more control over our lives, our nation’s exemplary world leadership will quickly evaporate as private investment, (the only source of real economic growth), is increasingly diverted to ever more inefficient uses. The entire world will then no longer enjoy the benefit of having a nation such as ours to “pull its chestnuts out of the  fire”, (which we in fact did at least three times in the last Century), by the selfless sacrifice of our soldiers in battle.

     This dread scenario thus amounts to a clarion call for us to exercise the virtue of Hope, as we lift our hearts and minds first and foremost in prayer, before engaging in the upcoming struggle.

 

"Show ID to Vote" shows up to 'help' a New Bedford election

Jack Spillane column from Southcoast Today, October 18, 2011

Tom Weaver and Ralph Zazula were so pleased with their efforts to interfere with last month's special election in New Bedford that they videotaped themselves.

There they are with Cheshire Cat grins sitting in front of their illegal sign that says "Show ID to Vote."

The two used-car salesmen-types had bamboozled Elections Commission Chairman Maria Tomasia into believing they had the Secretary of State's permission to be in the Parker Street School voting precinct as observers. To say the duo are masters of word games and language twisting would be to vastly underestimate their finely tuned skills.

Weaver and Zazula weren't observing the New Bedford election so much as they were sitting behind a table with an illegal sign that implied to Parker Street voters — who live in one of New Bedford's poorer neighborhoods — that they needed a form of identification in order to vote.

Underneath their "Show ID to Vote" sign was a "Rule" that said "Voluntary Compliance."

But as Mayor Scott Lang said, at that point, the voter suppression effort was complete.

"I want this to be investigated," he said Monday, adding that he has instructed City Solicitor Irene Schall to ask for an inquiry to be conducted by both the Secretary of State's office and the U.S. Justice Department.

This was a closely contested election in which a low voter turnout in New Bedford was one of the keys to Republican Keiko Orrall's victory over union painter Roger Brunelle Jr.

Orrall defeated Brunelle by running up a big vote in her hometown of Lakeville. Nearly 30 percent of the Lakeville voters cast ballots versus only 11.2 percent of the voters in New Bedford.

There's no doubt Orrall would have won this election anyway, but there's also no doubt Weaver and Zazula and their sign "Show ID to Vote" were at Parker Street hoping to keep the New Bedford vote even lower than it already would be. "Absolutely it's voter suppression," said Lang of the effort of Weaver and Zazula and their advocacy group, "Show ID to Vote."

Of course, you don't really have to show any such voter ID in Massachusetts in order to vote. And unless the state is going to adopt an expensive regulation in which everybody, including folks who have very little money, are issued state identification cards, activities like Weaver and Zazula's are illegal.

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, on her Friday evening telecast, said Weaver, a failed Republican congressional candidate, and this group have been actively promoting their efforts around the state. The group, according to the Maddow Show, has also run a commercial billboard near a Latino neighborhood that said "Show ID to Vote."

In fact, Republicans, in the wake of the big minority vote for President Barack Obama in 2008, have been enacting voter ID laws across the country, in a throwback to the old poll taxes and literacy tests in the South before the civil rights movement. States like Texas, Tennessee and Wisconsin have adopted voter ID laws, but not heavily Democratic Massachusetts.

But Zazula, who describes himself as one of the founders of "Show ID to Vote," claimed he and Weaver merely intended to hold their helpful sign outside the New Bedford polls.

And he said he will only talk to the Secretary of State's office about who instructed him to hang the "Show ID to Vote" sign at a table inside the New Bedford precinct, but that it was neither Weaver nor himself.

Zazula also maintained that the table and sign were positioned so that voters would only see it on their way out of the precinct, after they had voted.

His group is not advocating that Massachusetts voters obtain an ID in order to vote — it's simply encouraging people to voluntarily show their ID when they vote, he said.

You know, because it helps the elections run smoother, Zazula purred, claiming there were all kinds of identification difficulties, even at a sleepy precinct like Parker Street in a sleepy election.

"I'd like to see people give an ID and make it easier on public officials," he said.

That's awfully nice of Ralph, who says he recently changed his registration from unenrolled to Republican in order to run for the Republican Town Committee in Bedford.

But this duck looks like voter suppression, quacks like voter suppression and acts like voter suppression.

According to Tomasia, Weaver and Zazula sat behind a table with that illegal sign from roughly 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. The Parker Street poll workers — apparently under the impression the pair had Tomasia's permission to be there — never asked them to leave.

Tomasia said she will go back to requiring a letter from the Secretary of State for all election observers. She said she didn't know about the "Show ID to Vote" signs until she arrived at the Parker Street precinct at 4 p.m., but acknowledged that she herself didn't ask the dynamic duo to take it down.

She said Secretary of State William Galvin's office has now informed her that the "Show ID to Vote" sign was illegal. The secretary's office says it is taking "remedial" steps to make sure the group never displays a similar sign inside a precinct.

Zazula says they absolutely had no intention to display a "Show ID to Vote" sign inside a precinct, but won't answer when asked if it was New Bedford poll workers who told him to put the sign up.

Yeah, that's it; it was the poll workers' fault.

And all "Show ID to Vote" was trying to do was help elections run smoother.

Contact Jack Spillane at jspillane@s-t.com