Wednesday, June 11, 2008

$4,000,000 Signatures?!

Over the last few weeks I have been out an about running my errands. I make a stop at the bank, maybe get a little take out, and pick up a new release from blockbuster.

While making my rounds I have been stopped more than once and asked to sign a petition.

Me being the political junkie that I am, of course I have to know the details of such a petition. So I ask, “For what cause am I supporting by signing such a petition?”

Of course, the usual broad answer is only spat out after a few stumbling words are uttered. You know if they are stumbling terribly they really have no idea what the petition is for, so they begin to make up the cause.

I was told that the petition I would be signing is one that police officers, firefighters, and nurses have all sponsored in order to make sure Congress does not pass a pay raise. So to get this straight, if I signed the petition, I asked, I would be signing in order to stop Congress from raising their salary?

“Oh, yes,” the gentleman responded, without looking me directly in the eyes.

After finding out he had been getting paid a couple bucks per signature and listening to his dumb hollow responses, I realized he was in it for the bling bling and not the cause.

That is only one example over the many occasions over the last couple weeks that I have been asked to sign the same petition. Of course every person I have encountered had a different tale for me. I was even offered a job at one point to help circulate petitions. How absurd!

After doing a little digging and getting a little help from Nick De Leeuw we discovered what the real cause is behind the petition. And know, it has nothing to do with the aforementioned hoax and outright lies from the circulators.

The following dictation is taken from Nick at and the following describes the proposed Constitutional Amendment of which the petition is really for.

· Two (2) seats on the Supreme Court would be eliminated. It targets those with the least seniority, Justices Young and Markman, both Republicans re-elected in recent years by overwhelming margins. They'd lose their jobs as of December 20, 2008.

· All seven (7) Court of Appeals seats up for grabs in 2010 would also be eliminated as of this December, cutting short by two years the terms of previously elected judges. Six of the Court of Appeals judges being targeted are generally considered to be "GOP." The seventh, Helene White, has been nominated by President Bush to take a seat on the federal bench and will be moving on anyways.

· All judges would be subject to a pay cut beginning in 2009 that would reduce compensation to what the position garnered in the year 2000. Judges who took the bench before 1997 have their pensions calculated on their final salary. The paycut, in essence, would force these judges to chose between early retirement and significant long-term financial penalties. One judicial insider who spoke on condition of anonymity claims that in theory up to half the judgeships in the state could suddenly go vacant. While that could create major delays and case back logs it would also provide Jennifer Granholm with the ability, in one sweeping set of action, to appoint half the bench in the State of Michigan.

· The Judicial Tenure Commission would be rebuilt including an affirmative action provision mandating the makeup of reflect the population of the State of Michigan.

· The House of Representatives would be reduced to eighty-two (82) members. The Senate to twenty-eight (28). New district lines would be drawn according to strange provisions requiring "competitive" apportionment. Half would be drawn with a majority Dem base, half with a majority GOP base while four (4) Senate seats and nine (9) House seats would be restricted to a maximum 53% base from either political party.

· A new redistricting commission would be created with four (4) Democrats and four (4) Republicans and a ninth "non-partisan" member serving as chair. The ninth member would be selected by no fewer than six of the other eight members. If an agreement on the ninth cannot be reached each Party would submit a name and then toss a coin.

· The redistricting plans also require six of nine votes for passage. Without the requisite number each Party submits its own redistricting plan for approval of the "non-partisan" chair. The "non-partisan" chair who may actually be a Democrat selected by the flip of a coin. Once this "non-partisan" chair approves plans from each side another coin is tossed deciding district boundaries statewide.

What a scary world we live in when Looney leftists have to lie to get what they want passed. Though, it comes as no surprise.

-Chaz Oswald

No comments: