Restricting Voting Rights for Electoral Gain - a slide show :

http://www.protectingthevote.org/?source=DSH

The Corporate " people" and right wingers are tinkering with our Democracy - trying to rig the system to their advantage. What can we do ? We can use tools like this to bring awareness to others, to make sure we never find an excuse to miss a chance to vote and to educate our children and grandchildren  about people and organizations who want to destroy what has been built up over decades. This is the year of the VOTE - remember, YOUR vote is YOUR voice !

GDH

A message from Michigan Democratic Party Chairman, Mark Brewer :

"The Republicans are determined to waste $10 million of taxpayer money on an unnecessary presidential primary on February 28th. To make matters worse, they're trying to drag Democrats into it, despite the fact that we have chosen not to participate.
In order to confuse and disenfranchise Democratic voters, Republican Secretary of State Ruth Johnson placed President Obama's name on the February 28th ballot solely to create partisan mischief. Our attempts to keep the President's name off of the ballot were ignored. Therefore, the Michigan Democratic State Central Committee has decided not to enforce the party rule that prevents Democrats from participating in both the presidential primary and the MDP's presidential caucuses on May 5, 2012.
We won't let Republicans confuse or disenfranchise Democrats. Democrats who vote in the primary will not be banned from participating in our caucuses.
Please read the MDSCC's resolution from this past weekend's meeting and share it with at least 10 of your friends. Please post it to your websites and social network accounts. We need to get the word out to alleviate confusion and make sure no Democrats are disenfranchised."

The original email can be found at the following link :

http://service.mail.com/mail.html;jsessionid=55C8AADDCB85B5F87E9A5A07A9EFF875.jport-us010#6

August 7th is Northern Michigan's  "D Day" ! ( Derek Day)

http://baileypeopleplaces.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/1st-condis.jpg

Here is the newly formed 1st Congressional District - the largest Congressional District east of the Mississippi River. This is not just any ordinary Congressional District - it's ours and it's unique in that it is THE Northern Michigan Congressional District.

This is what's at stake in this year's primary election on August 7th and in the general election in November. At question in August's election is whether we accept and / or will allow the politicos in Lansing to chose who THEY want to be OUR Congressman. Their pick is Gary McDowell ( he lost to Dan Benishek in the 2010 election ).

When we cast our votes on August 7th we must ask ourselves - Are we the beneficiaries of politics in which we have no input ? Would we benefit from representation by their candidate who apparently is indebted to them and not the Democrats of NORTHERN Michigan ?

Republican Congressman Benishek is extremely vulnerable in this election year and if a NORTHERN Michigan candidate, chosen by NORTHERN Michigan Democrats defeats him it puts those who would force their candidate on us into the uncomfortable position of having to take us seriously in the future - even listening to our views and respecting our politics. Derek J. Bailey is the man of our time, of NORTHERN Michigan, respected above and below the Mackinac Bridge, young, energetic, intelligent, experienced and ready to represent the largest Congressional District east of the Mississippi.

Betrayal by Senate Democrats ...

The following news was posted on " The Huffington Post", February 7, 2012. I have  fired off letters of outrage and deep indignation to our Senators, Levin & Stabenow. Senator Levin voted FOR this but Senator Stabenow voted against it ( I have emailed her thanking her for supporting working men and women and their right to form unions to collectively bargain with their employers. ) I am including my email to President Obama at the end of the article. The shading is mine for emphasis.

"WASHINGTON -- The Senate passed a Federal Aviation Administration bill on Monday that includes an anti-union measure bitterly opposed by labor groups.
The bill, which modernizes America's air traffic control system and funds the FAA through 2014, was fought over for four years, leading to a partial shutdown of the FAA last summer because of anti-union measures added by the Republican-controlled House.

It passed 75 to 20, with a majority of Democrats backing it.

Among the controversial provisions were changes to labor law for rail and airline workers -- backed by the airline industry -- that would count anyone who did not vote in an election for a union as voting against it, making it much more difficult to certify attempts to organize new unions.
That measure was stripped in a conference committee to work out differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill, only to be replaced by another that raises the threshold for seeking a union from requiring 35 percent of workers' signatures to requiring half.
Unions mounted a last minute push against the measure Monday, including sending out a letter signed by 19 labor groups hammering Democrats for giving into the House.
"Rewarding the House Republican Leadership's desire to rewrite decades of long standing labor law in a flash by inserting an unrelated and controversial labor provision in a much needed aviation safety and security bill, without notice, hearing, or debate, sets an extremely dangerous precedent," says the letter, led by Communications Workers of America.

Senators who voted for the bill, including Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, praised it as a good compromise and a vital step forward for the country's air traffic control system.
"I happen to think it's a very, very good bill," Rockefeller said.
A number of his Democratic colleagues, however, agreed with the unions, saying Congress was caving in to a few powerful airlines.
"The only entity that [the old union vote system] apparently doesn't work for is the management of a few powerful airlines," said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). "These powerful companies don't want workers to have representation. They don't want to engage in collective bargaining with their workers. They're deeply concerned, I guess, that at some point in the future they just might have to put a few additional dollars into middle class workers' pockets."
While Harkin called the changes to labor law "less detrimental" than the original language, he was still among the senators to vote against the bill.
"My vote is to stand up against the notion that a federal agency [the National Mediation Board] and the American workers it is charged to protect should be punished for doing what is right, what is fair, what is within their jurisdiction, and to stand up against a process that allows the few and the powerful to hijack this body, to change the rule of the game in their favor," Harkin said.

The bill now goes to President Obama."

Here is my email to President Obama - Please email President Obama and ask him to please Veto the Federal Aviation Administration bill.

Dear Mr. President,
                              I am deeply ashamed of Senate Democrats who voted for the Federal Aviation Administration bill. This is a remarkable demonstration that Democrats have forsaken their old friends in America's unions. I am further upset that the influence of the Airlines Industry is become paramount to the right of workers to collectively bargain with employers for living wages, workplace protections and benefits. This is a sad day for all American workers and a national disgrace. Please, do not sign this bill when it comes to your desk ( it is certain to pass in the Republican controlled House ). Please VETO this bill and send it back and tell them to remove the anti-union language.

Developing : Alcona Progressive Alliance

On Monday, February 6th at 7:00 pm ten people from across Alcona County met at the Harrisville Holistic Center to discuss the idea of forming a county-wide organization called the "ALCONA  PROGRESSIVE  ALLIANCE". 

According to "Dictionary.com", the definition of " Progressive" is

"pro·gres·sive

   /prəˈgrɛsɪv/ Show Spelled[pruh-gres-iv]  adjective

1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters: a progressive mayor.

2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.

3.characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.

4. ( initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to any of the Progressive parties in politics.

5. going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step.

6. noting or pertaining to a form of taxation in which the rate increases with certain increases in taxable income.

7. of or pertaining to progressive education: progressive schools.

8. Grammar . noting a verb aspect or other verb category that indicates action or state going on at a temporal point of reference.

9. Medicine/Medical . continuously increasing in extent or severity, as a disease.

10. noun - a person who is progressive or who favors progress or reform, especially in political matters.

11. ( initial capital letter ) a member of a Progressive party.

12. Grammar .

a.

the progressive aspect.

b.

a verb form or construction in the progressive, as are thinking in They are thinking about it. "

Following introductions, the attendees received handouts from organizer, Paul Peterson, and discussed the feasability of taking formal steps to create a " progressive" organization. A wide ranging discussion ensued where diverse viewpoints and ideas were discussed. It became apparent that a concensus existed that a progressive organization could be of value to the Alcona area.

The idea is to create a welcoming environment within which people with varying viewpoints can recognize progress in Alcona County when and where it occurs, solicit public input on diverse topics and, by using a consensus methodology,  develop positions on local, regional and national current events issues which are of concern or interest to the group in general and the public at large. 

It was decided  that the group will meet again on Monday, February 20th at the Harrisville EMS station on M-72 at 7:00 p.m. to begin work on developing a statement of purpose. The meeting is open to all who are interested.