“Right” to Vote DENIED Again!

August 31, 2010 by Ian
Filed under: Update

The last time I tried to vote, they refused to allow me to do so as a homeless man, despite their claims that homeless people have a “right” to vote too.

A couple of weeks ago, I attempted to register to vote again – this time putting down a home address on their form as they had begged me to do in the past. However this time I registered under my current name of Ian Freeman rather than my old slave name. I wanted to see if they would accept that name.

The good news is they claim they will accept the name, but the bad news is that they are rejecting my voter application because I wrote “All Rights Reserved” above my signature, on the advice of one Matt Mavrogeorge from the NH Attorney Genital’s office. Does their rejection of the application on this basis suggest that one is giving up rights by signing their voter registration form? I set out in an attempt to find this answer and left a message on Matt’s voicemail. He emailed back the following:

Dear Ian,

Thank you for your voice message regarding your voter registration application. Voter registration forms are set forth and required by RSA 654:7. Modifying the registration form by adding qualifying language, such as “all rights reserved”, to the applicant’s signature line is considered to be an improper change to the form’s required content. Again, than you for your inquiry.

Sincerely,

Matthew G. Mavrogeorge
Attorney
Civil Bureau
New Hampshire Department of Justice
33 Capitol Street
Concord, NH 03301
(603) 271-1222 phone
(603) 223-6243 fax

To which I responded:

Matthew,

That is part of my signature for government documents. Are you denying me the supposed right to vote?

Thanks,
Ian

His reply:

This Office does not deny individuals the right or ability to vote. We simply explained our position regarding additions or modifications to the required content of the voter registration form. We do not have anything further to add concerning your inquiry.

My response:

Matt,

Would it be more accurate to say you have advised the Keene city clerk to deny me the supposed right to vote?

I’d appreciate an answer, thanks.
Ian

Hi reply:

Ian, That would not be accurate. I do not have any more to add to what I have already stated. Please feel free to speak with my supervisor, Associate Attorney General Richard Head (271-1248). Thanks. – Matt

I then called Richard Head. (Yes, Dick Tracy and Richard Head work in the same office. Insert your own jokes here.) Here’s the .mp3 recording of that call. As you can hear, he dances around the issue for ten minutes and refuses to answer any questions of substance.

Any ideas as to what to do now? It doesn’t matter what I do, these people refuse to allow me to use the system they claim they want me to use! Three little words seem to mean so much to them, but they won’t explain why. If you don’t give up rights by signing the forms, then what’s the big deal about writing “All Rights Reserved” there? If you DO give up rights, then what rights? As usual, they have no obligation to explain themselves, while they believe we have an obligation to continue funding them. Someday I look forward to testing their claim that we are obligated to obey and pay them, because I’m getting pretty fed up with their violence and their system.

I hope you’ll make the move to New Hampshire and help make this place free.

keenenative, jr.

Do I think all the laws and taxes are fair? No. But it sounds to me like you guys are a bunch of whiners who just don’t want to pay your fair share. Sorry, nobody rides for free……That's what YOU SAY, kiddo. I ride for free. I must be a nobody. I'd be glad to pay, if I had any money. But sorry, all I have are these "Federal Reserve Notes", with pictures of dead US Presidents on them….They're mostly green, with some red & black…they look like an African flag, or frogskins…Will that be acceptable to you, as payment of taxes?…If that's not enough, I can always print more, can't I???…But anyway, I still ride for free…..walk for free, too!.
Yeahwhatsthat

All for the elimination of the public school system.
Gabe

Zeus:

The libertarians you know sound like compromisers, the kind of people who give up the Anne Franks of the world just because its the easier road.

While I think I can appreciate what you are driving at here, your analogy is in poor taste, in my opinion. Although I strongly detest many of the things our current government is doing, it is nowhere near as bad as what my grandparents went through because of Nazi Germany. In fact, a big reason why I became a libertarian is because I don't think anyone should have to produce "papers please", or be persecuted because of their beliefs, or go through that sort of oppression ever again.

The "compromisers" were not the ones who gave up Anne Frank, anyway. The oppressors were. The compromisers were the ones who saw the cognitive dissonance between their personal opinions of right and wrong, and what was going on at the time, and decided not to just look the other way.

Compromise is almost never the "easier road". It's much easier to dig your heels in the dirt and refuse to budge. Trying to change things incrementally is usually more challenging, the way I see it.
Paul

I certainly agree that nothing happening today comes even close to the level and scale of abuse under the Nazis, or in southern slavery. That much should be obvious.

I agree with gradualism, but not with compromise, if that makes sense. So, Gabe, when you support changing things "incrementally", I agree with you.

But, I don't think we should tolerate any level of evil. Our ultimate goal needs to be the elimination of all aggressive violence, even if that goal can never be reached perfectly.
Zeus

Gabe:

While I think I can appreciate what you are driving at here, your analogy is in poor taste, in my opinion. Although I strongly detest many of the things our current government is doing, it is nowhere near as bad as what my grandparents went through because of Nazi Germany.

And the Nazi Party of 1930 wasn't as bad as the Nazi Party of 1945, either. Only *after* the atrocities have been committed and mountains of the dead have been built can we see in hindsight that it had to begin somewhere, that evil doesn't sprout fully-formed out of the aether.

I assert that history repeats itself and many of the actions being taken by the government, particularly in the last decade but certainly over its entire existence as well, are echoes ringing the same terrible cacophony that has rung before in Germany, Russia, Italy, China and other countries over the centuries. A symphony of death that gets louder and louder over time unless someone stops it from ringing.

You're right that it isn't that bad yet. The key word is "yet". Like a cancer, government will inevitably kill the patient if left untreated. The tyranny of now may be akin to apainful cyst on Uncle Sam's backside — but left to its own devices, it will grow in size and intensity until it becomes infected or explodes.

Let it not be said that we did nothing when we had the chance, because by the time it becomes as bad as 1945 Nazi Germany, it will be too late.

In fact, a big reason why I became a libertarian is because I don’t think anyone should have to produce “papers please”, or be persecuted because of their beliefs, or go through that sort of oppression ever again.

Agreed. And that's why we can't turn a blind eye to it or think it will get better just by swapping the Cobra for the Asp or the Lion for the Tiger.

The “compromisers” were not the ones who gave up Anne Frank, anyway. The oppressors were. The compromisers were the ones who saw the cognitive dissonance between their personal opinions of right and wrong, and what was going on at the time, and decided not to just look the other way.

I disagree. To me, the compromisers were the Germans, Jews, Gypsies and others who gave up their friends and even their own family members to save their own necks. The ones who obeyed the orders of the Gestapo because it was easier to sacrifice another rather than take a stand. And little good it did most of them when the guns were turned on them.

Compromise is almost never the “easier road”. It’s much easier to dig your heels in the dirt and refuse to budge. Trying to change things incrementally is usually more challenging, the way I see it.

Again I disagree here as well. In my experience, most people do not have the fortitude to dig in and refuse to budge in the face of great harm or possible death, especially when it is coming from authority.

Trying to change things certainly is more challenging as you say — hence giving in and giving up are the easier path.
yeahwhatsthat

Zeus.

You have no idea how you would have dealt with the gestapo. No idea. I don't know if you have kids or not. But 'not compromising' while an mp44 is pointed at your little girls head is easier said than done.

You guys really need to get into the real world and understand that idealism is stupid.
Gabe

You’re right that it isn’t that bad yet. The key word is “yet”.

I never used the word "yet", you introduced it.

Also, I'm still waiting for your response to my question above from a few days ago.
Zeus

yeahwhatsthat:

You have no idea how you would have dealt with the gestapo. No idea. I don’t know if you have kids or not. But ‘not compromising’ while an mp44 is pointed at your little girls head is easier said than done.

Did I not just say most would give in to the fear of death? How sad it is then that the government cancer hasn't gotten that bad yet and still people choose either to do nothing or they eat up the propaganda like Frosted Flakes while the country falls apart around them brick by brick.

Gabe:

I never used the word “yet”, you introduced it.

Yes, yes I did. See the conversation re: "The cancer ain't at the worst possible stage yet so let's just ignore it until we can't do anything about it" scenario above.

Also, I’m still waiting for your response to my question above from a few days ago.

I looked but didn't see anything I hadn't answered so you'll need to refresh my memory exactly on which question.
Gabe

Zeus – this question:

If you’re asking what I think is fair and just — and taking into consideration that voting is IMO just asking people their opinion — I’d say one vote per contest sounds about right.

I am asking it with respect to the conversation at hand, and the specific type of voting for which Ian attempted to register.

Given the situation Ian described, how many votes do you think each person should be given?
Gabe

Yes, yes I did. See the conversation re: “The cancer ain’t at the worst possible stage yet so let’s just ignore it until we can’t do anything about it” scenario above.

That's fair, but you're mixing analogies. On one hand, you were implying that the current status is akin to that of Nazi Germany. On the other hand, you say it isn't there "yet" but that we're headed down that road.

I strongly disagree with the first assertion, because of the reasons described above, and that's why I took offense originally. However, I would probably agree with the second assertion.
Zeus

Given the situation Ian described, how many votes do you think each person should be given?

I did answer it. It's even in your quote-block: "I’d say one vote per contest sounds about right."

On one hand, you were implying that the current status is akin to that of Nazi Germany. On the other hand, you say it isn’t there “yet” but that we’re headed down that road.

Sorry you got the wrong impression but the only implication I meant and thought I'd made is:

1) that it's not quite as hunky dory now as most people imagine,
2) it is inevitably going to get much, much worse over time on an accelerating basis,
3) all things have a beginning, regimes of tyranny and oppression being one of them, and
4) if nothing is done in the here-and-now before it gets to that level, if we stick our heads in the sand or play the same games they've fooled us into playing for decades, then it will eventually get to that level.

The worst case scenario will come to fruition and then it will be too late to do anything to stop it and those of us that survive it will sit there and wonder "How did it happen? Where and when did it all go wrong?".

It is "The Death of a Thousand Cuts". A law here, a law there, a pinch of propaganda, a period of acclimation, and it builds up over time until the victim bleeds to death or is too weak to stop the final blow.

Keep in mind that Hitler did not begin his rhetoric with "Kill all the Jews". Instead, he preyed on the desperation of Germans in the wake of economic collapse and appealed to their hope and patriotism. He promised them greatness for Germany in a time of hopelessness. He made enemies for them to hate while he slowly took their freedoms away and absorbed more power.

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth."
bil

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

The entire quote is much more effective. Goebells was the greatest propoganda man ever,his work has been used by governments,business, and television. The man was truly a visionary. —bil
Gabe

I did answer it. It’s even in your quote-block: “I’d say one vote per contest sounds about right.”

Who one votes for is determined by their location, from the governor, down to the representative, and to the county executives, down to the state representatives, and to the mayor. If no location is established for the person who is going to vote, what's stopping them from casting more than one ballot in more than one location?
Zeus

They are. They know who he is. They have all the relevant information needed. Their own ordinances and laws also allow for the homeless (including overseas veterans who have no other domicile besides the barracks) to vote so knowing the specific geographic location where he keeps most of his stuff or the place he hangs out at most of the time is apparently unnecessary by their own say so.

And even if it wasn't, are you telling me that these wunderkinds that rule our lives and tell us what to do can't come up with a way to determine whether or not he's voted more than once? Because if they can't figure that out, they can't prevent voter fraud in any of its forms let alone handle one guy who doesn't have an address to give them.
tacticalchAos

Since when did registering with an address stop people from voting twice? Or even more? Check the past two or three presidential elections.
Zeus

Since when did registering with an address stop people from voting twice? Or even more? Check the past two or three presidential elections.

Not to mention "What's to stop those very same election officials from hording up votes they don't like and making them disappear?" which has been answered several times as headlines in the news. And those were just the incidents that have been reported on.