Will Connecticut Secretary of State Take On Obama’s Fraudulent Documentation?

OBAMA HAS “DISCRIMINATED” AGAINST ALL VOTERS WITH HIS FORGERIES

by Sharon Rondeau

(Jun. 25, 2013) — On Tuesday, The Post & Email received a newsletter from Connecticut Secretary of State Denise Merrill’s office opining that the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court declaring Section 4 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act unconstitutional is “worse than wrong.”

The Act had required certain areas of the country, primarily in southern states, to obtain pre-approval of any new election legislation from the U.S. Department of Justice before its implementation.

The lawsuit was brought in 2010 by Shelby County, AL against Attorney General Eric Holder, head of the U.S. Justice Department, and argued before the Supreme Court in February of this year.  The U.S. District Court and Appeals Court had ruled against the county, although the Circuit Court stated in its opinion that the need for Section 4’s application was “less robust” than it had been in the past.  However, it stated that voter discrimination could still be “concentrated” in areas previously identified by the Act.

The court held that by means of the “Tenth Amendment,” states have the authority to run their own governments and “the power to regulate elections.”  The court said that states should be treated with “equal sovereignty,” meaning that no special conditions should be applied to some states and not others.  The decision contended that in 1966, when the Act took effect, an unconstitutional “blight of racial discrimination in voting” existed in some parts of the country but is no longer the case.

The court added that voter discrimination still exists but that “current political conditions” do not justify the application of Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act as written.

Merrill’s press release reads:

Denise Merrill

Secretary of the State

Connecticut

For Immediate Release:                                                                                For more information:

June 25, 2013                                                                                                  Av Harris: (860) 509-6255

                                                                                                                           Cell: (860) 463-5939

– Statement –

Merrill: Supreme Court Ruling on Federal Voting Rights Act An Injustice

Secretary of the State Issues Statement Reacting to High Court Ruling Invalidating Federal Review of Local Election Law Changes

Hartford: Secretary of the State Denise Merrill today issued the following statement reacting to the United States Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in the case of Shelby County v. Holder, striking down section five of the federal Voting Rights Act that required some states and local jurisdictions to submit election law changes to a review by the federal Department of Justice.

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling is worse than wrong; it is an injustice to the millions of voters in this country that face potential disenfranchisement at the ballot box due to discriminatory election laws that are still passed in many states throughout this country even today.

This ruling is dismantles a centerpiece of the civil rights movement that thousands of brave Americans fought to enact.  This decision is an affront to the memories of those like the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. and many others who sacrificed everything to allow disenfranchised Americans the simple right to vote.

For decades, section five of the federal Voting Rights Act stood as  a critical check and balance against states and local jurisdictions that time after time passed laws in reality designed to exclude certain portions of the electorate – mostly poor, the elderly, young,  and minority voters – from casting ballots.  Recently, this federal review of local election law changes has successfully struck down misguided attempts to rig the electoral playing field in the name of preventing so-called “voter fraud” that there is barely any evidence to suggest is a real issue.  This ruling suggests to me is that basic principles of non-discrimination and universal voting rights are now under siege by those who really don’t want every eligible American to vote.

I am grateful that here in Connecticut we are moving in the opposite direction under the leadership of Governor Dannel P. Malloy – enacting Election Day voter registration, enabling voters to register online, and next year allowing voters to change our constitution to allow early voting.  Instead of restricting our citizens’ right to vote, we are expanding access to the ballot box and we must stand united with our allies in other states who will fight to prevent discriminatory election laws where they are passed.

Congress should act immediately to rewrite section four of the Voting Rights Act, which was struck down today, so that the Justice Department can continue its nearly 50 years of vigilance in protecting the right to vote for all Americans.”

 

-30-

Av Harris

Director of Communications

Connecticut Secretary of the State Denise Merrill

(860) 509-6255 ofc

(860) 463-5939 cell

av.harris@ct.gov

Facebook

Twitter

to which The Post & Email responded:

 Hello, Mr. Harris, I have some questions regarding Secretary Merrill’s press release today regarding the Supreme Court ruling:

1.  Would the Supreme Court ruling not be in keeping with the concept of federalism, as is described in the U.S. Constitution, Article IV, section 4:  http://constitution.findlaw.com/article4/article.html i.e., a “republican form of government”?

2.  Can the U.S. Justice Department be trusted to oversee anything when it gives itself the ability to read the emails and phone call records of reporters in the course of their work without due cause?

3.  Since Merrill said that “we are moving in the opposite direction under the leadership of Governor Dannel P. Malloy,” is she not invoking the very meaning of federalism, e.g., that states are individual republics which can make their own laws and govern themselves without federal intervention?

4.  Although changing the state constitution to allow early voting gives the people a voice, how does Sec. Merrill view the fact that voters in Connecticut do not have the ability to gather signatures on any issue to then bring it to a referendum (ballot initiatives)?  Most states have this ability, but Connecticut’s voters do not.  Is this unconstitutional?

5.  Merrill claims that there is no evidence of voter fraud, but there have been cases in Ohio where voters, including poll workers, voted multiple times:
http://www.jdjournal.com/2013/03/12/melowese-richardson-cincinnati-poll-worker-indicted-on-voter-fraud-charges/

Other examples of election fraud in 2008 and 2012 are here:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/91776779.html

Even more significant, there were convictions of people who were found to have forged signatures to place Obama and Clinton on the 2008 ballot:  http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-964323

which means that if in fact the signatures were fraudulent, Obama’s name should not have been on the ballot in Indiana in 2008.

6.  Does Sec. Merrill have a comment about the findings of forgery regarding the long-form birth certificate posted on the White House website more than two years ago bearing Obama’s name?  A law enforcement investigation of which Congress is aware, plus a federally-certified document examiner, have found that the image was computer-generated.  The lead detective’s affidavit is here:  http://cdn.freedomoutpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/zullo-affidavit.pdf

I have personally spoken with and interviewed Det. Michael Zullo, the author of the affidavit, and received it electronically from someone working closely with him.  The certified document examiner who confirmed the posse’s findings has been a vendor of Obama’s law firm, Perkins Coie:  http://ppsimmons.blogspot.com/2013/06/stunning-revelation-obots-are-in-tizzy.html

The posse also concluded that Obama’s Selective Service registration card is a forgery:  http://www.mcsoccp.org/joomla/

If true, have Connecticut voters and voters in all states not been defrauded?  Is this not cause for the Secretary of State’s office to call for its own criminal investigation of the matter?

Thank you very much.

Sharon Rondeau, Editor
The Post & Email
www.thepostemail.com
P.O. Box 195
Stafford Springs, CT  06076

The Post & Email will report any responses received to our questions.  Mr. Harris is normally very prompt in replying.