Baldwin Urges Voters To Re-register To Aid AIP Candidate Nightingale
 

Nightingale's campaign manager has sent the following email around with the help of some organizations. I am not by virtue of duplicating parts of this email here indicating any support for her or suggesting that anyone else should or should not. SOS as an 501C org does not promote any candidate for elective office.The following is just an FYI. :

From:
To: Barbara Coe
Sent: 12/13/2009 2:28:24 PM
Subject: Fw: Very Important: AIP voter registration for 2010 must be done ASAP for Chelene Nightingale to be on the ballot.


----- Original Message -----
From: John M Baldwin
Cc: zim711@peoplepc.com
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 1:57 PM
Subject: Very Important: AIP voter registration for 2010 must be done ASAP for Chelene Nightingale to be on the ballot.

Okay Folks, this is an important time in the campaign season. As we are all aware, Chelene Nightingale is truly California’s only hope with respects to securing our borders, protecting State’s rights, bringing back an education system from the brink of disaster, and most importantly, BRINGING BACK CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES TO GOVERNMENT!



Chelene Nightingale and this campaign NEEDS YOU SUPPORT NOW MORE THAN EVER. One of the MOST IMPORTANT things to do right now for Chelene Nightingale and this campaign is to re-register into the “American Independent Party” if you are not already a member. With the primaries closing in fast, Chelene NEEDS all the AIP signatures she can get to place her on the ballot. Re-registering into the “American Independent Party” and signing the petition which allows Chelene Nightingale to be on the ballot is the most IMPORTANT step in her campaign. This will ensure that SHE IS the constitutional candidate in the California General Election come this November. Re-Registering is not hard and can easily be changed.



- Simply go into any post office and fill out a “Register to Vote” form and place “American Independent Party” as your party of choice in the above Party block. This form can be filled out without having to wait in any long lines, as they are placed up in the front of most offices. The “Register to Vote forms” can also be found at your local DMV. The same applies to their offices as well.



- Turn this in to any office representative there, or simply place it in the box that is located near the forms.



- You will receive notification by mail within three weeks that you have re-registered. You will now be able vote in the American Independent Party primaries. MORE IMPORTANTLY, you CAN NOW VOTE FOR CHELENE NIGHTINGALE, as she is the only candidate who fully embraces the idea of a “Part-Time” Legislature, Absolutely Securing our Borders (not forming a comprehensive plan that models AMNESTY), and RESTRORING CALIFORNIA’S SOVREIGNTY. (opposing Bills like AB 32). If you register into the AIP and vote for Chelene in the primaries, THIS WILL ENSURE that Chelene Nightingale has a chance to run against the “TWO-HEADED” monster that has dominated California’s politics for far too long!



Please, support Chelene Nightingale and give her a fair shot at running against the “special-interest” machine by registering to vote American Independent Party and signing the petition to place her on the ballot as soon as possible.



This campaign has been blessed by your overwhelming support thus far. So, let our efforts not go in vain by failing to get this candidate on the ballot so she can truly represent “We the People”



Again, thank you for all your support and dedication to this campaign. It has truly been an honor to know so many people that believe in constitutional government and believe it is time to bring it back to our Golden State.



Respectfully yours,



John M. Baldwin

Campaign Manager

Chelene Nightingale for

Governor 2010
============---------------------------------------

As you can see an effort is being made to kick this campaign into high gear. What I cannot understand is why the AIP is mentioned. Nightingale as far as I know is running as a member of the Constitution Party. The AIP split into two factions recently with the AIP faction being the one eligible to put their candidate on the ballot. Something does not seem right.

I'm sorry, but it's against policy to post anything on the forum that resembles an encouragement for a particular candidate.

Quote:

Help Chelene Nightingale become Governor-reregister as AIP

You must edit the title in the very least, and examine the rest of that post to make sure it doesn't seem like it's encouraging a vote or solicitation for any candidate or political party

Speaking only for myself, there was absolutely nothing contained in Eagle1's post that has filled me with motivation to assist Chelene Nightingale, whatsoever. In fact, I'll go as far as to say that there hasn't been an entry in this entire thread that has resulted in my feeling more favorably about her candidacy, in any way at all.

LOL. http://the_evil_clowns.tripod.com/c11.jpg

Sorry guys, cut me a break since I am a newbie. I fully understand about the 501C....now.

Any number of folks here know where I stand on some of the candidates out there.

Thanks for the help.:D:D

No worries mate...
We're all the blind leading the deaf here, so we know how easy it is to color outside of the lines.
I think we need to upgrade that section of the forum rules help. The IRS has some info for us on that, but it's just a bit long winded and all encompassing and I didn't want anyone to be put to sleep before making their post in this section

Thanks AG.:):)

Uh HUH:rolleyes:

You say that now, but later comes that "I'm just doing it for kicks, and I can quit any time I want". Next thing you know you'll be mispelling words and sneaking in to factories at night and inserting "Nightingale for Dictator" temporary tattoos in the CrackerJacks boxes.

So, are you suggesting there would be something wrong with doing that? Are you trying to instigate trouble by stirring the pot? We don't need traitors here acting against the best interests of Save Our State and the nation, I can assure you!

We all have to come together now!! Joe won't stand for this!!!

I'm not sure how posting at the forum confronts SOS's 501C status. If you post here at the forum, how is it that you represent SOS? If this is a public forum, then opinions expressed here can't represent SOS, even though it is SOS's forum. If it is not a public forum, then how does expressing support for a candidate make SOS as an organization responsible for endorsing a candidate? Members of a 501C organization are going to vote and discuss among themselves who they think people should vote for. This kind of behavior is not representative of the organization itself. It is only when the 501C organization start formally representing a candidate as an organization publicly that I think a violation occurs.

It was the original title that read like it was urging people to support a candidate. We don't want the forum to be used as a medium for partisan or candidate support. Discuss the candidates all you want, but refrain from using the forum as a platform to encourage others to vote for, or contribute to a certain candidate or party.
We placed some of these restrictions on ourselves because the last regime at SOS developed a particular political bent that led to outright ostracism if you expressed an opposing opinion or supported another party or candidate. If we maintain a certain distance from political partisanship we might not experience that again. In addition, we don't want prospective associates and supporters reading the forum titles to get an impression that we are a partisan or candidate specific organization. within the thread content there's a little more leeway for that because it is more apparent that it is the opinion of the individual poster, but again it must stop short of being your prominent agenda for posting here.

That's fine. I don't recall what the original title was. But I don't think it makes much sense to try and tell posters not to have a political bent since opposing some immigration policy and practice is certainly a political bent. It can be no other way. If you want to prevent people from being ostracized for voicing a particular point of view you are bound to be frustrated. If somebody were to come here posting support or sympathy for illegal immigrants, they are bound to suffer some negative responses.

But most importantly, I don't think it is necessary to make reference to SOS's status as a 501C organization in administrating posts at the forum, since the individual opinions of posters should have no effect on that.

I think as we head towards June we had better brace ourselves for discussions on the candidates. What good is a forum like this at a place like this if you can't argue over political candidates?

Watchit, or I'll ban myself on you.

Our aim to be 501C3 does need some consideration on the forum. It's important in that this forum is a publication of our main agenda and work. The main agenda of a 501C3 is charitable work, support, and advocacy for the class of people who are to be the beneficiaries of our effort. If the forum became dominated by partisanship or political candidacy, we might appear to be more of a PAC, and then maybe we might not be considered for grants or contributions from sources who felt that we were misrepresenting ourselves or would not use the funds in a charitable manner.
presenting and discussing candidate backgrounds and current events is most definately good use of the forum. Soliciting funds, posting advertisements, and outright advocating for them is where we start to drift away from charity and towards politics.
It's one thing to post "this candidate says this, and has done that". It's quite another to post "vote for this man/woman, or please send them money".

She's having trouble getting on the ballot!

Coulda seen that one coming a mile away. Really, look at it. If there really was overwhelming support, there would be no problem getting on the ballot. There isn't overwhelming support, nor will there be.

I would have hoped that the goal of Californians would be to prevent the democrats from holding both the legislature and the governorship. When that happens, Californians will be fleeced down to their last ha'penny.

"It's important in that this forum is a publication of our main agenda and work."

But the forum is not anything at all like that. That is precisely what it is not. There are many subjects on this forum that have absolutely nothing to do with SOS. Sports, for example. The forum is for discussions shaped by the subjects iin the various categories posted for the benefits of anonymous registered viewers and posters. It has nothing to do with advocating a particular point of view. Is registering for the forum all that is necessary to become a member of SOS? If so, then all that has to be done to free the forum from that restriction is to remove that qualification.

I don't care if I am a member of SOS. I first came to the SOS forum because I wanted to talk about illegal immigration and immigration in general. That's the only reason. I found the forum by searching Google. If I sympathize with SOS or post advocacy of the organization, it is entirely incidental. None of my opinions should be considered the voice of SOS or some member, they should not be considered advocacy by SOS, just my personal, private opinion. And restricting the ability for me to express support or opposition to some political candidate on this forum seems to me to be an editorial or forum administrative policy and not a legal obstacle. Such restrictions do risk the accusation of political correctness.

There are some very important points to be made in this. First, once again, remember that this June is only a primary election. It is not necessary for Chelene to be in the June primary elections in order for her to be on the November ballot. All that is necessary is that the AIP decide that she is the candidate they want to run. Unless there is some other candidate in the American Independent Party that also wants the AIP's candidacy, then what is point of there being any election between the American Independent Party candidates.

Remember, once again, that the primary elections are not necessary except as an appartus to cloud the political process and subject people more and more to the parasite government institution called the "two party system". Subjecting the AIP to the primaries only reinforces the two party system as it is represented in the primaries. We do not need primary elections. Political parties, like the AIP, should be running their elections for their candidates within the party. If the AIP does not make the primaries, why should they care as long as they can decide who they want to run for the governer's race in November?

Let's get rid of the two party system. Let's get rid of the primary elections. Let the political parties run and pay for their own internal elections.

The forum is pointedly representative of our agenda. While the individual posts are the opinions of the posters, we shape the overall body of the forum. We have certain stated values and rules regarding racial, religious, and political material that are posted here. Someone espousing a racially exclusive philosophy for example, is not something we support, and therefore wouldn't like to see dominating the forum because it might give them the impression that we were a racially based or themed organization. The same applies to political candidacy:
Discuss the material without appearing to espouse it to the point you are advertising or recruiting for them.

We've already stated that discussions about candidates are ok. When the material posted here takes a turn towards advocacy for them it starts to run afoul of our rules. The other sections of the forum that you mentioned such as entertainment, while not pointedly aimed at our effort, are placed there for everyones' use, but we wouldn't like to see any one of them become the main subject or reason people read or posted either.

"I don't care if I am a member of SOS. I first came to the SOS forum because I wanted to talk about illegal immigration and immigration in general. That's the only reason. I found the forum by searching Google. If I sympathize with SOS or post advocacy of the organization, it is entirely incidental. None of my opinions should be considered the voice of SOS or some member, they should not be considered advocacy by SOS, just my personal, private opinion. And restricting the ability for me to express support or opposition to some political candidate on this forum seems to me to be an editorial or forum administrative policy and not a legal obstacle. Such restrictions do risk the accusation of political correctness."

Oddly enough my original post was intended to represent what I had received in the form of email with little other added from me since I wanted to post the message along with its title in as pure a fashion as possible.

I am not inclined to support Nightingale for governor in the least bit.

I am more of a first amendment advocate than anything else. The person I quote above is pretty much like myself.

Though I do believe this person to be 100 percent correct I also factor in
my concern for those that keep the board up and have to take heat for what may be posted here.

The points brought up pro and con for the type of post that I put up originally and subsequently changed due to possible 501C violations are valid.


So are we right to assume that the posting of a member pro or con a candidate is or is not a violation? As mentioned the posting reflects a persons point of view not that of SOS.

How do we find out just for our own information?

Freedom of speech is not a good thing to give up.:eek::eek:

Obviously we need to place more clarification in this section so everyone will be informed. Just for everyones information, it is not a capitol offense to have unintentionally posted something. Many of our forum guidelines are still a work in progress, and we will undoubtedly make alterations to reflect our values and agenda.
Stating ones' opinion about a candidate is acceptable, having taken into consideration all other posting rules.

"I'm supporting Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx for office and I'm doing so because" is your opinion and welcome.

"Please support Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx for office" takes on an aura of advocacy and is not the best wording for the SOS forum

It's a little more important to consider the wording in the thread titles than in the body also.
And one last thing is that prominent associates in management should take extra care when stating personal support, because potential donors or grant managers might see that as the same as organizational support or advocacy.

Do not support.
 

I believe it to be a waste of my time, money and energy to support a completely unqualified candidate who will not get more than 3% of the vote, and therefore will not even have an impact on the debate.

You really think that much? 3%! That kind of showing would be impressive.

On the other hand, adding "former candidate for California governor" might be an impressive addition to a resume too.

I could see why she might think that, but I think many employers might just view that as eccentric behavior given the circumstances. Plus, why would someone hiring an employee consider their failures as a positive attribute?

I'm sorry, I should have been more precise. I don't believe the resume is for prospective employers. It's sort of a social experience.

A political run such as Nightingale's could lead to a job working for the Republican party or some other entity.

It will be interesting to see where this leads Nightingale to and where it all ends.

For the time being she has been able to rub elbows with Tancredo, Chuck Devore and who knows whom else.

Yes, I agree. And for me, if those who I will not vote for are bad enough, then maybe I will vote for their opposition. But not always. For example on the last presidential race, I did not enter a mark for any of the presidential candidates. Nobody got my vote. I firmly believe in being able to submit a "None of the Above" ballot and be counted for it too.

There are those who view this as a kind of surrender and think you should always vote for the lesser of two evils. But this can be an engineered process in which your political opposition wins by getting your support for somebody you don't really support on the thin chance that it moves you just a little closer to some political goal. This is how the "two party system" works, it poses a fake debate and tricks people into supporting one over the other on such empty promises.

Elections to effect a change in government is kind of like a civil war. A bloodless struggle.

If it were a real war, one side would be well organized with one commander and generals who followed orders and inspired loyalty in the troops.

The other side, would have several commanders, giving conflicting orders. They would be disorganized with no loyalty to the goal of victory but following each of the conflicted commanders. Generals are non existent because each commander rules only a very small force.

We all know which side is going to win. That side will use it's overwhelming force to oppress and enslave each of the splintered factions in turn.

I'm still going all out for Tom Campbell. Unfortunately most people still don't even know he's running.

Campbell has my vote in the primary. As far as the general election goes, whoever isn't a democrat and had a chance of winning.

Email From Jeff Scwhilk
 

Ironically neither Jeff nor Chelene supported Baldwin.


-----
> From: "Jeff Schwilk" <jeffschwilk@cox.net>
> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:48:00 -0800
> To:
>
> Rabid fake activist and long-time Jim Gilchrist ally Tony Genovese (above) is spreading more false rumors in his pathetic ongoing attempt to smear Chelene Nightingale and her run for Governor. He and his punk friends Davi Rodrigues and Sam Zisleman (new fake SOS.info group) are bloggoing all over Patriot sites and blasting emails like the one below with vile lies to attack her growing popular campaign. There are many dozens of other examples, but I'll spare you their hate.

Chelene is fully qualified to run for Governor and she will be on the June Primary ballot. As of this month, Chelene has been registered AIP for one full year. She will win the AIP Primary and she will be on the November ballot, likely against Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown.

The liars and smear agents all have ties to Neocons and other powerful entities assoiciated with Meg Whitman, Jerry Brown and other elitists and long time political insurgents. We will continue to expose these snakes and frauds whenever they pop out of their holes! THEY fear US (We the People) and are showing it more each day!

Ignore the lies and garbage put out by these goons. Chelene is on a roll and gaining more support daily. She is endorsed by former Presidential Candidate Chuck Baldwin. Meg has been endorsed by Juan McCain. America continues to rally behind Patriot candidates and you won't find a better one than Chelene! www.nightingaleforgovernor.com

Bcc: Nationwide Patriot Leader Network

Wow, he's using the verbiage that the liberals use "hate". And since when have I become a "goon"? These people really need a wakeup call on what reality is. This will only go on for a few more months and it will all be over, including Chelene's campaign for pie in the sky. Let them dream, sometimes that's all one has.

He and his punk friends Davi Rodrigues and Sam Zisleman (new fake SOS.info group) are bloggoing all over Patriot sites and blasting emails like the one below with vile lies to attack her growing popular campaign.quote

This statement is really funny, because Tony has never said anything kind about either one of these two. Tony in a world of his own, and no one wants to be with him.

When you have to resort to someone like Schwilk to prop up your campaign, you are in deep doo-doo. He's on his way to another lawsuit for running off at the mouth with vile rumor and he's still not paying up on the previous one. Hell, if I were Nightingale I'd sue him for defamation for even speaking well of me, simply because it came from someone of that caliber.
that may of course be a case of pot calling the kettle black and all though.

If Chelene is getting more support by the day, it is the best kept secret since the Manhattan Project. An endorsement by Chuck Baldwin! What that amount to is minnows supporting other minnows in the shark tank.

Although there are still many who object to John McCain, his political star has risen since the election.

In the Quinnipiac poll, there was a narrow margin among respondents, 35-37 percent on whether the United States would have been better off had Obama's Republican opponent John McCain won last year's election.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Likely his endorsement will have much more weight today than it did.

I keep hoping that someone other than Meg Whitman will come forward.

That is a direct quote from the above link.

"In the Quinnipiac poll, there was a narrow margin among respondents, 35-37 percent on whether the United States would have been better off had Obama's Republican opponent John McCain won last year's election."

What do those numbers mean, "35-37 percent"? A narrow margin? I don't understand what they are talking about.

Well this is somewhat on topic, and since I've been one of his biggest supporters I feel I should be the one to post this. Tom Campbell has just announced he's dropping out of the governor's race to run for the Senate against Barbara Boxer. I can't say I'm too happy about this, since Boxer may be vulnerable anyway, but now who's left to support for governor? I don't think I could ever vote for Meg Whitman after that disgraceful praising of Van Jones: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSn37TMXZO8. I guess that only leaves Jerry Brown, and he's totally out of the question. On the other hand if Campbell wins the Republican primary and goes on to defeat Boxer in November, I'll be one happy camper.

BTW, Tom is having one of his telephone town hall meetings tonight, and the topic will be the uncontrolled spending in Washington. You can call in by first registering here: http://www.campbell.org/action/jan14teletownhall. The meeting starts at 7:45, but I know from previous experience that it's best to get on the phone at least 15 minutes early if you want them to get to your call.

Twoller, I think she meant 35% agreed with the statement and 37% disagreed. I saw this poll on the news also and the figures are the same as the way in which it was reported.

Thanks for that information.