Uncategorized

Petition Qualified Voters Form

Instruction Sheet

The petitions must provide the voter’s actual signature AND their printed full name AND their full resident address (where they are registered to vote) AND the date each signed the petition. (There is also a block where the last four digits of the voter’s social security number is requested. This is optional only, It is not mandatory that it be provided.)

Each page of the petition provides an affidavit that must be signed by the person who circulated it stating that she/he personally witnessed each voter signing the petition and that the circulator is themselves a registered voter, or eligible to be registered to vote in Virginia. Please also note that a circulator cannot sign a petition that they are circulating themselves. They may, of course, sign a petition that another individual is circulating for Governor Allen.

The form must be notarized before it is returned to the campaign HQ.

VERY IMPORTANT: A valid petition form is one that includes both sides – front and back – of the form. If you are printing the forms yourself, please make sure to print out both side for each form. On older printers, you will have to print the front side, turn over the paper and then print the back side.

Petitions that are printed on one side only will not be counted.

Our campaign will provide multiple copies of the petition form to you upon request.

Petition Drive:  Signatures may be collected beginning January 1, 2012. We are setting an internal deadline of Friday, March 2 to have everything back to HQ.  It will be helpful to have petitions returned earlier for processing and verification.

Petition Qualified Voters Form 

Ideas for getting petition signatures:

Family, Friends and Neighbors

GOP Committee Meetings / Events

VFRW Club Meetings

Post Offices

Church

Gun Shows

Tea Party Meetings / Events

Grocery stores – when customer is leaving the store

Retail stores – when customer is leaving the store

Hair salons / Barber shops

Tune in at 5:05pm to ESPNradio941 in Hamption Roads. I’ll be on with good friend Tony Mercurio giving my picks for the race at Watkins Glen.

Kaine gets it badly wrong on Boeing

Richmond Times Dispatch

By J. Robert Brame

July 24, 2011

In a Delphic-like statement, former Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine simultaneously claims to support the “existing law that a company can open, locate or relocate where it wants” and contends that the “courts” should decide the National Labor Relations Board acting general counsel’s demand that Boeing abandon its almost $2 billion facility in South Carolina.

The demand is not based on “existing law,” and waiting as long as a decade for resolution by the courts has enormous, harmful consequences — not only to Boeing but to Southern workers and American industry in general. Now is the time for our leaders, like Kaine, to take a stand against this restriction on American businesses.

A little more than 10 years ago, a highly partisan NLRB general counsel made a similar attempt to expand the law. In that case, a union decided not to strike but instead to use an “inside game,” whereby workers would do only the exact tasks required by the collective-bargaining agreement. For example, instead of taking the utility’s trucks home so they could respond promptly to emergencies, the utility’s linemen left them at their work station. As a result, they could no longer respond quickly to families and consumers who had lost power or encountered dangerous downed power lines.

The company protested and made clear its displeasure, and when the union continued, it locked out the employees. That is, it sent the workers home without work and without pay.

The NLRB’s general counsel asserted that the employer thereby “retaliated” against the employees. A majority of the members of the board — all nominated by President Bill Clinton and including the chairman, William Gould, who was thought of as so radical that the business community had opposed his nomination — flatly rejected this attempt to expand the law.

The majority concluded that the union had “commenced economic warfare” in the hope of forcing management to accept the union’s bargaining demands. The majority held that the employer could defend against the union’s weapon: To argue otherwise would ignore “the [U.S. Supreme] Court’s observation. . . that ‘the right to bargain collectively does not entail any “right” to insist on one’s position free from economic disadvantage.’ ”

Click Here to continue reading