OBAMA CAMPAIGN SUES TO RESTRICT MILITARY VOTING

President Barack Obama, along with many Democrats, likes to say that, while they may disagree with the GOP on many issues related to national security, they absolutely share their admiration and dedication to members of our armed forces. Obama, in particular, enjoys being seen visiting troops and having photos taken with members of our military. So, why is his campaign and the Democrat party suing to restrict their ability to vote in the upcoming election?


On July 17th, the Obama for America Campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and the Ohio Democratic Party filed suit in OH to strike down part of that state's law governing voting by members of the military. Their suit said that part of the law is "arbitrary" with "no discernible rational basis."
Currently, Ohio allows the public to vote early in-person up until the Friday before the election. Members of the military are given three extra days to do so. While the Democrats may see this as "arbitrary" and having "no discernible rational basis," I think it is entirely reasonable given the demands on servicemen and women's time and their obligations to their sworn duty. 


The National Defense Committee reports:
[f]or each of the last three years, the Department of Defense’s Federal Voting Assistance Program has reported to the President and the Congress that the number one reason for military voter disenfranchisement is inadequate time to successfully vote. 


I think it's unconscionable that we as a nation wouldn't make it as easy as possible for members of the military to vote. They arguably have more right to vote than the rest of us, since it is their service and sacrifice that ensures we have the right to vote in the first place. 


If anyone proposes legislation to combat voter fraud, Democrats will loudly scream that the proposal could "disenfranchise" some voter, somewhere. We must ensure, they argue, that voting is easy and accessible to every single voter. Every voter, that is, except the men and women of our military. 


Make no mistake, the Democrat lawsuit is intended to disenfranchise some unknown number of military voters. The judge should reject it with prejudice. More:

Sikh sues Leno over Golden Temple Romney Joke

Local Sikh sues Jay Leno over Romney joke

A Sikh businessman in Bakersfield has filed a libel lawsuit against comedian Jay Leno after branding a joke from his "The Tonight Show" monologue offensive to the Sikh community.

Randeep Dhillon said it's not the first time Leno has cracked a joke at the Sikh community's expense.

"We cannot accept this," he said in a telephone interview Wednesday. "Nobody should be able to do this, no matter if it's media or politicians or anyone. Our religion should be respected as much as all religions."

A furor began when Leno made fun of GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney's wealth on Jan. 19. The segment showed a picture of a large, shiny gold building and joked that it was the former Massachusetts governor's "summer home."

The picture actually was of the Golden Temple of Amritsar in India, which according to the lawsuit, is sacred to the Sikh religion. India subsequently used diplomatic channels to officially complain to the United States government, according to numerous media reports. The U.S. State Department responded by saying the joke was clearly satire and protected by the First Amendment, the reports say.

Some Sikh leaders are now calling for a boycott of "The Tonight Show." In Bakersfield, which has a large Sikh community, a downtown AM/PM mini market co-owned by Dhillon erected twin banners on Wednesday that read: "Shame on You Jay Leno & NBC."

Dhillon's lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Los Angeles Superior Court, contends that "the publication and broadcast was libelous on its face and clearly exposes plaintiff, other Sikhs and their religion to hatred, contempt, ridicule and obloquy because it falsely portrays the holiest place in the Sikh religion as a vacation resort owned by a non-Sikh."

The lawsuit goes on to say that as a result, Dhillon suffered "loss to his reputation, shame, mortification and hurt feelings all to his general damage."

The complaint seeks unspecified general, special and punitive damages and legal fees.

Members of the Bakersfield Sikh Temple said Wednesday that the joke was inappropriate.

"It was a very hurtful thing to say," said Parminder Sanghera, who administers the temple's website. "That is our spiritual home. Like Muslims go to Mecca, that's our Mecca. You shouldn't be making fun of a holy site."

Sanghera added that he would be satisfied with an apology from Leno.

As of Wednesday, Leno had not publicly responded to the lawsuit, which was all over the blogsphere and entertainment news websites.

No one returned a telephone call to the office of Leno's agent.

NBC, which also is named in the lawsuit, declined to comment. source:

The U.S. Justice Department is suing the state of California and Gov. Jerry Brown because prison authorities required a Sikh prison inmate to cut his beard.


The U.S. Justice Department is suing the state of California and Gov. Jerry Brown because prison authorities required a Sikh prison inmate to cut his beard.

The lawsuit was filed Tuesday on behalf of Sukhjinder Basra, an inmate at prison in San Luis Obispo in central California.

It said that the requirement violated the man's right "to practice his religion" under the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLIUPA).



In the Sikh religion, which originated in northwestern India, unshorn hair is an article of faith.

The Justice Department said the suit followed a probe "that revealed that California's inmate grooming policy substantially burdens the rights of an inmate to practice his Sikh faith. "

"The rights guaranteed by the Constitution extend to all people in the United States," said Andre Birotte Jr., U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California. "By protecting those rights -- even for those incarcerated -- we strengthen those rights for all."

The state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation was also named in the suit.

RLUIPA, which became law in 2000, protects the religious freedom of people "confined to institutions such as prisons, mental health facilities and state-run nursing homes," the Justice Department said.