Texas authorities have threatened to arrest international election observers

Originally posted by badgerprints
I see it as hostile intervention from foreign powers because
that's really all it is.

If it isn't the pot calling the kettle black

Originally posted by badgerprints
targets with baby blue helmets.
Used UN guns for sale,
Only dropped once.

Who did you say was hostile ? ? look in a mirror

____________________________

I will be at a polling place on Nov 6th, meaning working at, I will check to see if anything fishy goes on with these UN 'observers', legally they cannot 'observe' within the 100 foot zone of any and all polling places in the entire country. I would guess they will possibly be more aggressive in the swing states. I don't know what they intend to do, no one seems to know exactly what they intend on doing, they can't legally harass, talk politics, ask questions to voters or even observe any closer than 100 feet away from the entrance of the polling building.

The Texas State Code concerning elections allows for watchers appointed by political parties, candidates, or groups supporting or opposing a measure on the ballot. These codes have been in place for a very long time. Within those state laws are well-defined eligibility criteria. Here are the foundational criteria for eligibility to be what is defined as a "watcher" (i.e. monitor) at an election polling location in the State of Texas:

(a) To be eligible to serve as a watcher, a person must be a qualified voter:

(1) of the county in which the person is to serve, in an election ordered by the governor or a county authority or in a primary election;

(2) of the part of the county in which the election is held, in an election ordered by the governor or a county authority that does not cover the entire county of the person's residence; and

(3) of the political subdivision, in an election ordered by an authority of a political subdivision other than a county.

(b) The Alcoholic Beverage Code supersedes this section to the extent of any conflict.

Please note two things:

1. - Paragraph (a) Subparagraphs 1 and 2 render the UN election monitors ineligible, under Texas State Law, to conduct the activities they state they plan to conduct.

2. - The above Texas law has been in effect since January 1986, so this isn't some Texas legislative "maneuver" to try to prevent what has been entertained. This is a long-standing eligibility requirement.

The proposed UN monitors violate the sovereign state of Texas's state law, therefore they need to just go to a state that doesn't give a crap about constitutional protections against violations of state law and hang around and observe. In Texas, they have been warned they will be arrested if they come within 100 feet. Texas has that right, since 1986, the rest of you need to get over it.

codes.lp.findlaw.com...

codes.lp.findlaw.com...

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by Juggernog

 

I don't see the issue here? I read the article and I fail to see the problem? Why are Texan officials so scared of the international observers? If the Texan election process is secure, and if it promotes equal voting rights for all citizens, why the aggression against the observers?

Texas could set an example to others of how the election process is suppose to work, so I fail to see what they have to hide by these observers coming in.

you're right...what does texas have to fear?...when somebody hides something, it's for a good reason. texas republicans are out of control. these people have passports in our country and are free to move about. so what are they going to arrest them for?....watching and asking questions of voters that leave the polling place?

reply to post by jimmyx


Dude, its a violation of State Law. What is it about that do you not understand?
Like Valhall said, they should go to a state that doesnt have that law or to states that dont care because they wont be here.

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Right now he's probably sitting in an armchair under a "Don't Tread on Me" flag trembling with anger and muttering to himself about the constitution as he polishes his guns, while his grey and weak wife reads the Bible to his kids and secretly plans her escape!

That was absolutely hilarious.

Originally posted by ToneDeaf

Originally posted by badgerprints
I see it as hostile intervention from foreign powers because
that's really all it is.

If it isn't the pot calling the kettle black

Originally posted by badgerprints
targets with baby blue helmets.
Used UN guns for sale,
Only dropped once.

Who did you say was hostile ? ? look in a mirror

____________________________

edit on 26/10/12 by ToneDeaf because: (no reason given)

If you are incapable of recognizing sarcasm then you may need to look at yourself in a mirror.

Pot-kettle-black? I don't see the Texas national guard in Belgium or Beijing trying to weasel into their political process.

You self loathing UN cheerleaders go ahead and embrace the meddling. We don't need the rest of the worlds approval to cast ballots.

Originally posted by jimmyx


you're right...what does texas have to fear?

We have nothing to fear.
Thus we stand against a precedent that simply makes inroads for further interference and meddling.
Have Americans become this blind or are they truly this needy for the approval of foreign entities?
Most UN countries wouldn't allow it on basic principle but they haven't been as conditioned as Americans.

reply to post by badgerprints


You keep repeating that the "precedent" is the issue. That precedent was set back in 2002.

These are the sixth United States elections the Office has observed, without incident, since 2002.

OSCE.org

You gotta love US hypocrisy. US Americans are happy that their country involves itself in foreign matters where they have no right to interfere, yet when foreigners want to watch their elections, they get all touchy and upset.

I say send the observers there, give the hypocrite US Americans a taste of their foreign policy circa the last 70 years.

reply to post by Rebroadcast


Youre wrong.. Why do people always assume that because our Govt does something that its the people thats doing it?
Where are you from? Do you have any control over your Nations foreign policy? Didnt think so.
And Texas is following its state laws.
I hope they do come and the AG follows through and arrests them.
Screw the UN

Originally posted by Juggernog
reply to post by Rebroadcast

 

Youre wrong.. Why do people always assume that because our Govt does something that its the people thats doing it?
Where are you from? Do you have any control over your Nations foreign policy? Didnt think so.
And Texas is following its state laws.
I hope they do come and the AG follows through and arrests them.
Screw the UN

Where I come from is not the topic of discussion. You need to ask yourself why people around the world make assumptions about you, then change whatever it is you are doing.

You have served to prove my point entirely correct. Thanks for providing proof that the US populace feels that it has the right to do as it wants across the globe, yet they are untouchable.

Screw the UN? Why's that then? Because they won't treat you with the exceptionalism you feel the US should be treated?

reply to post by Rebroadcast


Can you even read? I said just the opposite. I dont care why people make assumptions, if your so naive to think that ordinary citizens control the US foreign policy then this is my last post to you.
Youre not worth arguing with

Originally posted by Juggernog
reply to post by Rebroadcast

 

Can you even read? I said just the opposite. I dont care why people make assumptions, if your so naive to think that ordinary citizens control the US foreign policy then this is my last post to you.
Youre not worth arguing with

edit on 10/26/2012 by Juggernog because: (no reason given)

The discussion has touched on home truths too painful for you to accept, and now you wish to end it by any means, in this case personal attacks. How sad, but at least we now know that all the assumptions are correct.

I don't get all this "If you have nothing to hide..." stuff.

If you got pulled over for speeding and the cop said, "you mind if I take a look in your car" would you say yes? I mean, you have nothing to hide, right?

We have nothing to hide. We just don't want them here. They have no right by law to be here. So we want them to go away.

Originally posted by davjan4
I don't get all this "If you have nothing to hide..." stuff.

If you got pulled over for speeding and the cop said, "you mind if I take a look in your car" would you say yes? I mean, you have nothing to hide, right?

We have nothing to hide. We just don't want them here. They have no right by law to be here. So we want them to go away.

When has "the law" or what the people wanted ever stopped the US from wrecking the world?

Originally posted by Connector
reply to post by badgerprints

 

You keep repeating that the "precedent" is the issue. That precedent was set back in 2002.

These are the sixth United States elections the Office has observed, without incident, since 2002.

OSCE.org

OSCE is not the UN.
They are a European nanny commision but not the UN.

It is funny that the left wants someone to monitor the right but still demands that nobody actually be reqiured to have ID. Hypocrisy knows no bounds.

ID everybody and stop voter fraud? NO.
Cry to Europe because the right wants fair elections? OK sure.

Originally posted by badgerprints

Originally posted by Connector
reply to post by badgerprints

 

You keep repeating that the "precedent" is the issue. That precedent was set back in 2002.

These are the sixth United States elections the Office has observed, without incident, since 2002.

OSCE.org

OSCE is not the UN.
They are a European nanny commision but not the UN.

It is funny that the left wants someone to monitor the right but still demands that nobody actually be reqiured to have ID. Hypocrisy knows no bounds.

ID everybody and stop voter fraud? NO.
Cry to Europe because the right wants fair elections? OK sure.

edit on 27-10-2012 by badgerprints because: (no reason given)

Yes, I know they are not the UN. The UN is not sending election observers, the OSCE is. Re-read the OP, we are talking about the OSCE, not the UN. I don't understand why you keep talking about the UN?

From Abbott:

"It may be a criminal offense for OSCE's representatives to maintain a presence within 100 feet of a polling place's entrance. Failure to comply with these requirements could subject the OSCE's representatives to criminal prosecution for violating state law,"

NYtimes

So I am correct. This organization has been monitoring elections since 2002 and this is the organization Abbott is talking about in 2012. The precedent was already set. BTW the US is a founding member and they originally were invited to observe US elections to restore legitimacy after the 2000 hanging-chad debacle.

You people play into their games so easily.
I post something about a state that is legally blocking a foreign entity from interfering in our election
process and it doesnt even take one page before it turns into either a left right issue or an anti USA issue.
Stupid Pawns

reply to post by Connector


Please stop saying "precedent". There is no legal standing on this matter. You apparently do not understand the phrase "elected to". In the past the OSCE observers have participated simply as observers who were acquiring knowledge of the democratic process in a free country. These same observers then go to other countries, that have not been free countries or have newly accepted the democratic process, and apply the lessons learned from the various FREE countries they observed to ensure the democratic process is being observed in the questionable country.

In the past Texas ELECTED TO participate in this program. These observers have been clear that they are coming, and were invited into the country, to MONITOR the election process this time. They are no longer passive observers for the sake of knowledge transfer, they are now here to monitor...as if we were one of those dubious countries.

Guess what? Texas does not ELECT TO allow that and they have a law they can stand on to reject it.

There is no "precedent".