World News Korner

Mom has quite a set of pipes, and the baby's roller coaster of emotions is somewhat amazing to watch.

Source

Source

Courtesy of the YouTube page:


12-year-old Madison Kimrey of Burlington founded NC Youth Rocks after the North Carolina legislature passed voting restriction laws targeting young people, women, minorities, and the poor.

The law appears to be designed to create long lines at the polls — especially in more populous, urban areas — by cutting early voting and making the voting process more time consuming (this was the formula that created 8-hour waits in Florida for the 2012 election, as a FL election official testified to the House Elections Committee in March 2013). Also, the law requires voters to produce a photo ID, but student IDs are not accepted, even if issued by a state university.

The same law does away with disclosure requirements for political advertising and increases the limit on campaign contributions. Also, the law does away with same-day registration during early voting, which had been popular with African Americans and other groups who had previously not engaged in the democratic process at the same level as white voters had. The US Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit under the Voting Rights Act.

In this speech Kimrey takes exception to the end of a program by which 16 and 17-year-olds pre-registered to vote when getting their drivers license or through school programs.

Damn! That is one incredibly intelligent young lady.

Watch out North Carolina! Madison Kimrey is certainly going to be a force to be reckoned with!

Source

This is from the website of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders:

How did we go from healthy surpluses to terrible deficits? It's not that complicated. In 2001, President Clinton left office with a $236-billion surplus. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office foresaw a 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion, enough to erase the national debt by 2011. It didn't work out that way.

Instead, under President George W. Bush, wars were launched in Afghanistan and Iraq without paying for them. The cost of those wars, estimated at up to $6 trillion, was tacked onto our national credit card. Then Congress passed and Bush signed an expensive prescription drug program. It also was not paid for. Then Bush and Congress handed out big tax breaks to the wealthy and large corporations. That drove down revenue. So did the recession in 2008, which was caused by a deregulated Wall Street. All that turned big surpluses into big deficits.

Interestingly, today's "deficit hawks" in Congress — Rep.Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and other conservative Republicans — voted for those measures that drove up deficits. Now that they're worried about deficits again, they want to dismantle virtually every social program designed to protect working families, the elderly, children, the sick and the poor.

In other words, it's OK to spend trillions on a war we should never have waged in Iraq and to provide huge tax breaks for billionaires and multinational corporations. But in the midst of very difficult economic times, we just can't afford to protect the most vulnerable people in our country. That's their view. I disagree.

So where do we go from here? How do we draft a federal budget that creates jobs, makes our country more productive, protects working families and lowers the deficit?

For a start, we cannot impose more austerity on people who are already suffering. When 95% of all new income between 2009 and 2012 went to the top 1%, and while tens of millions of working Americans saw a decline in their income, we cannot cut programs that working families depend on.

Instead of talking about cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, we must end the absurdity of corporations not paying a nickel in federal income taxes. A 2008 report from the Government Accountability Office found that was the case with 1 in 4 large U.S. corporations. At a time when multinational corporations and the wealthy are avoiding an estimated $100 billion a year in taxes by stashing money in tax havens like the Cayman Islands, we need to make them pay taxes just as middle-class Americans do.

You know the thing that never stops irritating the crap out of me is that we always allow the Republicans to define the debate. Even when we stand up to them we are always in a position where we have already acquiesced to most of their demands. (See Sequestration.)

I think we need to stop playing defense and start taking the fight to them. In fact I think we have to!

I do realize that Bernie Sanders is in a VERY safe district in Vermont and therefore is allowed to speak his mind with impunity, but I also know that if we were able to effectively explain to the American people what is REALLY going on these days we would start to gain ground politically and over time hopefully change the discussion to make it more factually based.

I say that after Hillary gets elected she drafts her husband, Bill Clinton to a newly formed Cabinet position, the "Czar of explaining stuff to the American people."

"Put me in Hil, I got this."

Sound good?

Source

Currently Rand Paul consistently polls in the top two potential candidates for the GOP nomination in 2016, so the fact that he is this incredibly lazy. and disrespectful of intellectual property, is big news.

Is it wrong that I can hardly wait for 2016 to arrive?

Because I have a feeling that if you thought the GOP lineup in 2012 was ridiculous that you haven't seen ANYTHING yet.

Source

Courtesy of the Business Insider:

Among the first scientists to dig for the roots of political orientation were a couple of pioneering psychologists in California named Jack and Jeanne Block. Back in 1969, the Blocks asked two challenging questions: How deep do our political leanings run? And how early in life do these leanings begin to form within each of us?

In search of answers, they devised a very unusual study, and they began it with kids who were still in nursery school. On the face of it, the premise of the study seemed absurd: What did nursery school kids know about Democrats or Republicans, or about the complicated, hot-button issues of the day? Still, the Blocks were serious researchers from the University of California at Berkeley, and they were determined to break new ground.

For their experiment, the two professors placed a group of 128 nursery-school children under the close observation of several teachers for a period of seven months. Then the Blocks had each of these caretakers measure the three-year-olds' personalities and social interactions, using a single standardized test. The same children then underwent this process again at age four, with a different set of teachers at a second nursery school. The Blocks tabulated the scores for each child and then locked the numbers away in a vault.

The test scores then sat in the vault for the next two decades, while the children from the study went their separate ways in life. They grew up, completed their educations, and turned into young adults. After 20 years had passed, the Blocks succeeded in tracking down 95 of their original 128 subjects, in the hope of measuring how liberal or conservative each of them had become. This time they asked the young adults, now age 24, to situate themselves on a five-point political spectrum. They also asked them to express their opinions on a number of highly partisan, hot-button issues. In particular, several of these questions measured their tolerance of inequality between the genders and between different racial groups. In addition, they were asked to describe any political activism they might have participated in during the intervening years.

The results, published in 2006 by the Journal of Research in Personality, were astonishing. In analyzing their data, the Blocks found a clear set of childhood personality traits that accurately predicted conservatism in adulthood. For instance, at the ages of three and four, the "conservative" preschoolers had been described as "uncomfortable with uncertainty," as "rigidifying when experiencing duress," and as "relatively over-controlled." The girls were "quiet, neat, compliant, fearful and tearful, [and hoped] for help from the adults around."

Likewise, the Blocks pinpointed another set of childhood traits that were associated with people who became liberals in their mid-twenties. The "liberal" children were more "autonomous, expressive, energetic, and relatively under-controlled." Liberal girls had higher levels of "self-assertiveness, talkativeness, curiosity, [and] openness in expressing negative feelings."

Now as many of you here know, I love me some science. However I have some real questions about the veracity of this study since I think we all know of people who have once been conservative and who are much more liberal later in life, and vice versa.

However I do recognize, and have personally tracked, data from very young children which is a strong indicator for who they will be later in life.

So I will leave this as an open question, and encourage all of you to weigh in with your opinion.

I will offer my daughter's opinion from a conversation we had yesterday, and that is that it is all about education, and being exposed to different sources of information. For her the dumber you are, the more conservative you are, and the smarter you are, the more right you will be.

You know I kind of love that young woman.

Source

(Oct. 29, 2013) — Following the submission of two affidavits at the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on October 18, The Post & Email contacted the petitioner, Douglas Vogt, to ask him key questions about his claims that the short-form and long-form birth certificates of Barack Hussein Obama are forgeries and that the identity of the forger and other criminal assistants is known.

On October 18, 2013, Douglas Vogt filed two affidavits with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington requesting that a special federal grand jury be empaneled to examine evidence of forgery, fraud, and treason in the matter of Obama’s forged birth certificates

Vogt is owner of Archive Index Systems, which markets scanners, copiers and document imaging systems. Previous to that, he owned and operated a typesetting business. An accountant by training, Vogt has also worked as a certified public accountant. Vogt has performed exhaustive research and published books on science and history.

Vogt maintains that the two fraudulent birth certificates were produced by the Hawaii Department of Health in cooperation with several employees there, including the director, Loretta Fuddy.

The public affidavit, or “Notice,” can be read here: Notice Doug Vogt 10-18-13

A Memorandum of Law accompanying the Notice explaining the need for a second, sealed affidavit is here: Memo Doug Vogt 10-18-13

On Monday, The Post & Email interviewed Montgomery Blair Sibley, who lent his legal expertise to producing the affidavits.

In March, we had spoken with Vogt about his findings to date, at which time he had hinted that he would take action on the forgery in his home state of Washington.

In June 2011, less than two months after it was posted on the White House website, Vogt submitted an affidavit and 28-page report to the FBI detailing why the long-form birth certificate was a forgery but received no response.

THE POST & EMAIL: When did you conceive of the idea to file your conclusions with a federal court?

MR. VOGT: Over a year ago. I had seen what was going on with cases being put into court by various lawyers and thought they were approaching it all wrong. My background is accounting. I have a degree in accounting and was a public accountant for a number of years. When I was reading Title 18 code regarding the section on forgery and other sections, there were two things that came out that I found very interesting: one was misprision of felony and the other was misprision of treason. These say that if you learn of a felony committed against the United States, you’re supposed to report it. Each one has a different reporting sequence, but both of them involve a United States judge, which today is called a U.S. federal judge.

No one has ever used the statute. Usually a prosecutor uses it to force someone who has firsthand knowledge of a crime but never reported it; they use it to compel the person to confess or he would get three or seven years in prison. For misprision of felony, it is a fine or three years in prison, and misprision of treason is seven years in prison or a fine.

When I read those two laws and thought about it, I said, “When they get it, they really don’t have much choice if the evidence I have is compelling; they have to give it to a federal grand jury. Montgomery Blair Sibley had come to the same conclusion when I met up with him through a mutual friend about six months ago.

It took me about a year. I already had some of the points of forgery, but now it’s up to 20 points of forgery. Paul Irey and I did the research on this. As I’ve told Paul, it’s the gift that just keeps on giving. The last thing I found was that the registrar stamp was deliberately altered, with different variations of the alteration. For a forger, the easiest thing in the world to forge is a registrar’s stamp; you just take a legitimate one, scan it and copy it, and put it on your forgery. Then why was the forger altering it in ways of changing the line spacing, even the word spacing, on some of them? The size of the beginning of the line of the type is different from the text size at the end of the line.

The affidavit and the book that Paul and I are writing could actually be used as a textbook for forensic examiners when you’re dealing with an electronic document for which there was never an original. You have to know quite a bit, unfortunately. We’ve been doing this for two years. Fortunately, with Paul’s experience of Photoshop – I have knowledge of Photoshop but not like him; Paul’s been doing it since the first version of it in the ’80s – our experience in typesetting and my knowledge of scanners and the technology and software, we knew we had so many ways to prove the birth certificate a forgery, and this is the culmination of it.

THE POST & EMAIL: When will your book be published?

MR. VOGT: Paul has to do two chapters and I have to do some also. I don’t have a big publisher yet and I am looking for one. I have 11 chapters done in a 17-chapter book. They are all easy chapters and short. The hard evidence is in the earlier chapters.

THE POST & EMAIL: I recall when we spoke in March, you had intimated that you were contemplating an action in your home state containing the criminal evidence.

MR. VOGT: Yes, I knew about misprision of felony and treason and pretty-much knew what I was going to do. What I think has made the Obots and the others nervous is they see the public affidavit, which is over 15,000 words with 21 exhibits, but they don’t know what’s in the sealed one. The sealed one is almost as big; it’s over 12,000 words and has at least 14 exhibits to it. This is major. When I say I have nailed them to the wall, I really did.

THE POST & EMAIL: Are you 100% sure of who the forger was, the alleged financier and propagandists you mentioned in the affidavit?

MR. VOGT: Yes, of the main characters. It’s not my job to investigate all of the Obots; a special prosecutor would do that, including pulling the phone records. The internet connections and everything like that is already there; the NSA has it. A federal grand jury can subpoena all of those records, and people cannot withhold it. They cannot withhold evidence subpoenaed by a federal grand jury. If [Hawaii Department of Health Registrar Dr. Alvin] Onaka refuses, the judge issues an arrest warrant. It’s obstruction of justice, a felony, and they can’t refuse it.

It’s serious business. It’s the only way to get to this guy. It avoids the Justice Department and the FBI unless they come around.

I want to say right now: I feel very bad and sorry for the leaders of the FBI; the CIA, a few of whom I know, and the good lawyers in the Justice Department. They must be extremely mad; I know that’s the case for the military, as friends of mine have told me. They’re as mad as all hell, but they can’t really do much; most of them are just good bureaucrats and don’t want to endanger their pensions and their salary. But somebody had to do it, and it looks as if Paul and I, with our backgrounds, were “stuck” having to do it. No one else came forward.

I want to say one thing that is really important: whatever judge does this knows that he will go down in history. This is the worst crime in American history. There’s nothing worse than this. It’s on the same order but vastly larger than the Benedict Arnold trial. We can’t find this crime happening in any other country anyplace in history: a foreign enemy agent – this guy is a Muslim and a member of the Muslim Brotherhood – wound up becoming president by a conspiracy between communists and Islamists to install him in office so he can destroy the country from within. That’s what the crime is. These people better understand that if it gets to a grand jury and they find that the evidence I have is correct – and they’ll find more of the conspiracy – the penalty for treason is death. I can’t imagine these people escaping that particular penalty because of the nature of the crime and what Obama has done to the country in getting us to over $8 or $9 trillion more debt than Bush had when he left office. These people are going to hang. It’s the worst crime in American history; nothing comes close.

THE POST & EMAIL: Do you think Obama is a citizen of a foreign country? In our last interview, you said you believed that Frank Marshall Davis was Obama’s biological father.

MR. VOGT: He admits to it. During the last campaign, there was a White House contest that if you contributed and you were drawn from a raffle, you could have lunch with the president. Obama is quoted saying in the ad, which I have, that “My father taught me the great love of jazz.” That wasn’t Barack Obama Sr.; that was Frank Marshall Davis, who used to teach classes in jazz in Chicago. There’s no question that’s who he is. And Obama knows it. That’s why Stanley Ann Dunham brought him over to Davis’s house two or three times a week: so that he would bond with his father. They knew it; they all know it.

That’s why he was anointed by the Communist Party to become president. He was the one to be anointed. What this amounts to is a bloodless coup carried out by the Communist Party.

Frank Marshall Davis was a known communist writer, union activist and newspaper editor who relocated from Chicago to Hawaii in the late 1940s

THE POST & EMAIL: Frank Marshall Davis was a communist, writing for communist organizations in both Chicago and Hawaii after he moved there.

MR. VOGT: Yes, he was a card-carrying communist.

THE POST & EMAIL: Do you think Obama was born in the United States?

MR. VOGT: No, he was born in Kenya. Let’s say you have a daughter, and she’s seven or eight months’ pregnant in 1961. You have health insurance here. Would you send your daughter off to Kenya, Africa, where your health insurance won’t pay for the birth? You don’t even know if there’s going to be a hospital in that village or a witch doctor when she gives birth. Would you send your daughter off to give birth in Africa?

THE POST & EMAIL: No.

MR. VOGT: Bingo. I’ve asked this question of a lot of mothers and fathers and get the same answer. Then ask yourself: why did Stanley Dunham pay for the airfare – well over $1,000 – to go from Hawaii to New York? I looked it up. I was in the import-export business in the 1970s. She had to fly from Hawaii to Los Angeles; Los Angeles to New York; New York to London, and London on BOAC to Kenya.; it was a colony and nobody else but British airlines could fly there. That had to be $1,000-$1,500, and he forked it over, and this is why. He was in the CIA, and even in Obama’s book, Dreams From My Father, one of the chapters said “My grandfather was a company man,” which was a code word for the CIA. It was a well-publicized CIA program that brought Barack Obama Sr. to the United States. It was a CIA-run program.

We have a picture of Barack Obama Sr. standing at the airport with a bunch of leis around his neck and Stanley Dunham, the “furniture salesman,” standing directly to his right. We’ve all seen that picture. This is the important part: he knew, as I figured out later, that the CIA got a copy of the birth certificates and death certificates. In 1939, FDR created a federal security agency which was later taken apart. Inside of it was the Social Security Department, the CDC Department of Vital Statistics, and some other functionaries that dealt with security and, during the war, even creating germ warfare and chemical warfare. In 1946, it started getting broken up. By 1947, they created the CIA; the CDC was put back into the Department of Health and Human Services and was called something else. The Department of Vital Statistics and Social Security ended up being its own department or part of Treasury or whatever.

This is the important part: When an agency is split up, the succeeding agency has the rights of the parent agency from which it came. So it inherited the rights to receive information which the old agency had. In other words, they had the right to collect the birth certificates.

THE POST & EMAIL: Of everyone who worked for the CIA?

MR. VOGT: The agency itself got copies of birth certificates of people working for the CIA. Stanley Dunham’s problem was this: His actions prove that he knew the agency received birth certificates. He couldn’t afford to have his darling daughter show up giving birth to a black baby because they would know immediately that his new son-in-law was supposed to have been his target, but now it’s Frank Marshall Davis. He would lose his security clearance overnight. That’s why he paid the $1,000 or $1,500 to ship his daughter off to Kenya to give birth.

THE POST & EMAIL: And that would make sense if the purported father were from Kenya and she wanted to join him there…

MR. VOGT: There you go. The birth certificate was not in the United States, and it would not be reported to the agency.

THE POST & EMAIL: Mike Zullo has said publicly that they can’t find the airline manifests for the days before and after Obama’s alleged birth.

MR. VOGT: Yes, it was altered. That’s tampering with evidence; it’s a felony. A lot of people are going to be spending a lot of years in prison or hanging. This isn’t just destruction of evidence; the person who did that is part of a conspiracy to commit treason. They’re all principals now, including the guy who did the research for all the information that went into the boxes in the birth certificate; he became a principal in a treason case.

I didn’t have to notarize the documents, but I did. So it can be used by any district attorney or federal attorney to prosecute. What I revealed this time deliberately is that the sealed affidavit is substantial. It’s not a short little novelette. They will know this is a real forensic examination and have proof of everything I said.

THE POST & EMAIL: Do you think you would be the first person to know if the judge empanels a federal grand jury?

MR. VOGT: I would, but I couldn’t tell you about it. As Mr. Sibley said, I wouldn’t tell anyone. I’ll have some information up on vectorpub.com, and we’ll have another website which I’m trying to develop with copies of the pleadings. But I’m going to have a lot more on it. I have two audios from one of the foremost experts on narcissism; it was an interview on Israel National News quite a few years ago. I’m going to put that up so that people can listen to it. I want people to understand the kind of animal we’re dealing with in the White House. This guy is a real sick puppy. He’s what they label a malignant narcissist. He is really a sick guy because his personality is so badly fractured.

We have the evidence that was obtained through the Freedom of Information Act on Barack Obama Sr. In one of the letters in there, it said that the daughter, the mother, wanted to give up the baby even before he was born. We have the evidence from Barack Obama Sr., about 22 days after Obama was allegedly born, in which he said he was married, but when it asked if he had any children, he put “Roy Obama.” Roy was his son, but it wasn’t Obama.

Barack Obama Sr. never took credit for him over four years. He never takes ownership.

THE POST & EMAIL: You are in the scanner/copier business. What do you think of the claim by some of the Obots that a Xerox 7655 Workcentre copier can replicate the anomalies found in the long-form birth certificate?

Written in 1971, Rules for Radicals instructs community organizers how to unite people in pressing for “change” by marginalizing, “freezing,” and ridiculing their opponents

MR. VOGT: It’s a ruse. It’s one of the 12 things that Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals teaches. When the other side says one thing, enter another subject and say another thing. That’s all they did with that. Once I repeated that number in Alinsky’s list, I never heard from them again. They just run and hide.

The PDF that was posted on the White House website clearly says it was done on a Mackintosh using Preview, and the PDF was generated by Quartz. They’re both Mackintosh programs. It was never on the copier. You couldn’t do it.

THE POST & EMAIL: Why would it have needed to be copied if two certified copies were supposedly picked up at the Hawaii Department of Health?

MR. VOGT: The White House cover story was that they got the two copies and took one of them, which was the same one that Savannah Guthrie had, with the premise that they created the PDF and put it up on the internet. There are only two ways that you make a PDF: either scan it in, or you wind up doing it within Preview. We had people do tests with it on the Mackintosh, and Quartz and Preview cannot do it. They do a minimum amount of cleanup and optimization, but they don’t create the same kind of layers at all. They strip off the metadata and put theirs in, which is what happened. This was just the Obots chasing their tails. It’s all a lie. They were grasping at straws.

Figuring out Obama’s forgery wasn’t really that hard.

THE POST & EMAIL: No expert has vouched for it as authentic. One was quoted by Fox to have done so, but he issued a correction which Fox refused to make.

MR. VOGT: He’s in Canada; I called him up.

THE POST & EMAIL: What did he say?

MR. VOGT: He said,”I didn’t say that.” He agreed with me that the thing had problems with it. Fox lied. He told me, “Fox lied.”

THE POST & EMAIL: And then they wouldn’t correct it.

MR. VOGT: He told me that, too.

—————————

Mr. Vogt then described to The Post & Email how Alvin Onaka had “indicted himself” by actions Vogt believes he took at the Hawaii Department of Health. He also said that numerous alterations of the stamp were made. “The only reason I can find to do that is to give plausible deniability to Onaka…the easiest thing to forge is the registrar’s stamp. You just scan it in. Why change it unless you’re doing that to give cover to the registrar?”

Source link. © 2013, The Post & Email. All rights reserved.



Source

Supercut: Obama Lied, Health-Care Died; You Were Warned... Letter via Linda Jordan... Video below...

"If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what." - Barack Obama, July 2009

October 29, 2013
Bob Ferguson
Washington State Attorney General,

A relative of mine, a 21 year old female whose income is less than $15,000, just received a notice from LifeWise Washington that there were "changes coming to your health plan as a result of federal healthcare reform. Your current LifeWise Plan will DISCONTINUE on December 31 2013 due to changes required by healthcare reform. We've included details of a new plan which is the closest match to your 2013 plan. If we don't hear from you, we'll automatically move you to this plan.." The new plan has "More cost built in. The added benefits, taxes and fees mandated by federal healthcare reform may lead to higher benefit costs than the current plans we offer."

In other words you are getting kicked off the health care plan you chose. Period. You are being forced on to a new plan you did not choose because the government says so. Period. Your monthly premium will go up, you will have a higher deductible and get less coverage. Period!

I have not figured out all of the dastardly details in this new plan but so far it will cost her $37.00 more a month than her current plan and her deductible goes from $1,970 per year to $6,350!! And NO she can not afford it! And NO she does not want welfare!

This loss of coverage puts her health at risk and is unconscionable! We knew better, but Americans were told by politicians, including Patty Murray and Jim McDermott, who voted for the Health Reform Act that no one would lose the insurance plan they were on. Period. They lied. Millions of Americans had health insurance plans that they paid for and now they don’t because of what Democrat politicians did. You have a duty to defend Washingtonians against this un-constitutional interference in free commerce, this bait and switch. Particularly because it puts people, my niece included, at risk. What are you going to do to restore the health care plans Washingtonians had purchased? This needs to be fixed by December 31, 2013.

Linda Jordan Seattle WA



Source

Video: Sen. Ted Cruz Grilled About Natural Born Citizen Issue; Obama Abused Power...

Jorge Ramos of Fusion.net interviewed U.S. Senator Ted Cruz and grilled him about his qualifications under Article II of the U.S. Constitution and whether he was running for president. Senator Cruz stated he's in the process of renouncing his Canadian citizenship but did not mention whether he was running or not. Ramos correctly pointed out foreign-born persons are not eligible to be POTUS. Sen. Cruz was then asked if Obama is a dictator and he stated Obama absolutely has abused his powers.

- FACTS HERE -

Source

Courtesy of Kera News:

Add gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis to the growing list of women who are having problems voting because of Texas' new photo ID law.

Davis, a Democratic state senator, was voting early in Fort Worth on Monday when poll workers made her sign an affidavit to verify her identity.

Why?

Her photo ID -- a driver's license -- included her maiden name, Wendy Russell Davis. But voter registration records listed her as Wendy Davis. Davis used the incident as an opportunity to tell the media who had gathered that women who have had name changes may be discouraged about voting. Election Day is Nov. 5.

A new law being enforced for the first time requires a voter show a valid photo ID that includes the voter’s name exactly as it appears on the elections department’s registration list. A 2011 state legislative decision requires Texans to show valid photo IDs at the polls for the first time. KERA reported on the matter last week.

Davis was only asked to initial a box on an official election document at the polling place.

“My voter registration card did not exactly match the driver’s license,” Davis said Monday after casting her ballot. “My driver’s license has my maiden name on it. My voter registration certificate does not. I was required to sign an affidavit demonstrating I am the person who is on the voter registration card.”

But Davis is concerned that women who’ve married or divorced and have changed their last names will have to go home and bring back additional documentation, such as marriage or divorce certificates.

Davis said: "That’s my greatest concern -- that women will show up to vote [and] they’ll be turned away because they don’t have that documentation and that women will be disenfranchised as a consequence of the interpretation of the voter ID law as it’s been applied.”

I think that it is awesome Wendy Davis is speaking out against the voter ID law implemented solely in fear of her campaign for governor.

This had GOT to be helping Davis. I mean after all when was the last time that a political party changed election law simply to stop a challenger that they fear they could not defeat in a fair fight?

Source

Click image to start video.

I don't know what's more disturbing, that Rep. Pete Olson was allowed to pilot planes in the Navy or Rep. Joe Barton's complete misunderstanding of what constitutes a violation of HIPAA?

I would not let either of these idiots use pointy scissors much less help craft legislation in Washington.

Source

Sarah Palin with her "Notice me, listen to me, give me money" fake breastesess.

Courtesy of CNN:

Sarah is selling Sarah. The former vice presidential candidate and half-term governor of Alaska is a commodity of one and a marketing machine. She has created a new politics of profit.

Palin's reanimation on the tea party stage probably means no more than the other intentions she has floated but never executed. She spent almost a year of the last presidential election cycle teasing the far right that she was going to run for president. She never did, but lots of network TV interviews and speculative articles drove up her name recognition and brand identification.

And she's not running again.

Palin is re-running the same show in her home state of Alaska by hinting that she is going to be a candidate for the U.S. Senate. She will not run though. There is too much risk of failure. She's not the near-unknown who was elected governor of Alaska and then quit 2½ years into the job. She has a profile, and she intends to use it to make money, which is one commitment she knows how to keep. Running and losing is always bad for business.

Palin is a product. Not a candidate.

Politically, Sarah Palin is an opposite gender version of Donald Trump. She makes grandiloquent statements about candidacies and a future that she knows will never transpire. Trump and Palin lack the courage to run for president but have profitably monetized the speculation about a candidacy. Trump cannot abide the notion of losing, which he knows is inevitable, and he fears what that might do to his image and revenue stream. Palin is self-aware enough to realize that she has neither the intellect nor popular support outside the increasingly unpopular tea party.

So why not make a buck?

Precisely!

Okay well this will in no way comes as new information to any of you who have spent even a minimum amount of time on this blog. However to others it may come as a revelation. And to certain Palin supporters (I think there a half dozen or so left.) it will be tantamount to blasphemy.

P.S. There is more Palin bashing goodness in the article over at the CNN link.

Source

Courtesy of ADN:

Federal elections regulators are set to decide whether to adopt a draft advisory opinion that would allow Joe Miller to use campaign funds to pay a legal judgment in a case stemming from his unsuccessful 2010 U.S. Senate run in Alaska.

During Thursday's meeting the Federal Election Commission could also opt to make changes to the opinion. Public comment is being accepted in the lead-up to the meeting.

State court Judge Stephanie Joannides in May ordered Miller to pay more than $85,000 in legal costs to the Alaska Dispatch, which was among the media organizations that sued during the 2010 campaign to obtain records from Miller's personnel file from his time with the Fairbanks North Star Borough.

Joannides found Miller's conduct in the case caused unnecessary delays and costs for the Dispatch and Fairbanks North Star Borough. She also found there were significant matters at stake in the case, with the records emerging near the end of the 2010 campaign. Miller lost the race to incumbent Lisa Murkowski, who mounted a write-in campaign after losing the GOP primary to Miller.

Miller was a part-time borough attorney for seven years. He was disciplined in 2008 for using work computers for political purposes, information revealed in his personnel file.

He is appealing Joannides' ruling and through an attorney, asked the FEC whether campaign funds could be used as a cash deposit that would be held while Miller appeals the judgment against him. Miller also asked if he could use campaign funds to pay the judgment if his appeal fails, a request the opinion suggests should be granted.

Can you believe this guy?

Miller did everything he could to stop the Alaska Dispatch from revealing to the Alaska citizens what was in Miller's employee file from his days working at the North Star Bureau. And his actions were indefensible in the eyes of Judge Joannides:

“Miller’s conduct, which included taking inconsistent positions, failing to disclose information during discovery, and his procedural filing, which the record did not support, all caused unnecessary delay and costs for both Alaska Dispatch” and the Fairbanks North Star Borough, the judge wrote in her ruling.

The court costs for the Alaska Dispatch were $112,375. Miller was ordered to pay 75% of that, $85,000. (At the time of the ruling Miller had almost half a million dollars in his campaign war chest.)

Of course in the end Miller failed in his bid to block access to those records and we all got to learn that he broke into the computers of his fellow employees and used them to vote in his own straw poll in an attempt, along with then Governor Sarah Palin, to oust party chairman Randy Reuderich.

Ultimately that damaged his character enough to allow Lisa Murkowski to beat him in the general with a write in campaign.

And remember, this guy is STILL trying to run for office in Alaska, and is currently mounting a campaign for the GOP nomination to run against Mark Begich for his Senate seat.

Source

KTVN Channel 2 - Reno Tahoe News Weather, Video - Courtesy of Raw Story:

A Republican Nevada state assemblyman said that he would vote for legislation in favor of slavery if his constituents wanted him to. According to the Las Vegas Sun, Jim Wheeler of Gardnerville, NV was speaking to the Storey County Republican Party when he made the remarks last August, although they are only now coming to light.

“If that’s what they wanted, I’d have to hold my nose, I’d have to bite my tongue and they’d probably have to hold a gun to my head, but yeah, if that’s what the citizens of the, if that’s what the constituency wants that elected me, that’s what they elected me for,” he said. “That’s what a republic is about.”

Now, Wheeler said to the Sun, “liberal operatives” are spreading the video in an effort to smear him.

Well I do believe I am one of those "liberal operatives" so you know what that means. (It means I play the video of him saying the words so that all of you can make an informed decision on whether he is being portrayed honestly or not. Though I don't think that is what HE thinks we do.)

You know I believe I understand what Assemblyman Wheeler was trying to say (Scary, right?), however I think he misses an important part of his job.

It is not the job of politicians to simply jump through whatever flaming hoop their constructions are holding up at any given time, it is also to help the people who voted them into office in understanding that flaming hoops are dangerous and should not be misused.

In other words people do not always know what is in their best interests because they are living their lives and may not have had to time to educate themselves on every single issue up before the Assembly.

And it is not as if his constituents are completely homogenous, therefore it would be impossible to vote in a way to satisfy every single one of them (Especially, let's say, if any of them were African American. For instance.) so his argument is fairly ridiculous.

Besides that, slavery it bad, and if Assemblyman Wheeler cannot adequately explain THAT perhaps he does not belong in politics.

Source

Courtesy of HuffPo:

In February 1974, Republican President Richard Nixon proposed, in essence, today's Affordable Care Act. Under Nixon's plan all but the smallest employers would provide insurance to their workers or pay a penalty, an expanded Medicaid-type program would insure the poor, and subsidies would be provided to low-income individuals and small employers. Sound familiar?

Private insurers were delighted with the Nixon plan but Democrats preferred a system based on Social Security and Medicare, and the two sides failed to agree.

Thirty years later a Republican governor, Mitt Romney, made Nixon's plan the law in Massachusetts. Private insurers couldn't have been happier although many Democrats in the state had hoped for a public system.

When today's Republicans rage against the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act, it's useful to recall this was their idea as well.

In 1989, Stuart M. Butler of the conservative Heritage Foundation came up with a plan that would "mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance."

Insurance companies loved Butler's plan so much it found its way into several bills introduced by Republican lawmakers in 1993. Among the supporters were senators Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa (who now oppose the mandate under the Affordable Care Act). Newt Gingrich, who became Speaker of the House in 1995, was also a big proponent.

Romney's heathcare plan in Massachusetts included the same mandate to purchase private insurance. "We got the idea of an individual mandate from [Newt Gingrich], and [Newt] got it from the Heritage Foundation," said Romney, who thought the mandate "essential for bringing the health care costs down for everyone and getting everyone the health insurance they need."

So why are today's Republicans so upset with an Act they designed and their patrons adore? Because it's the signature achievement of the Obama administration.

There's a deep irony to all this. Had Democrats stuck to the original Democratic vision and built comprehensive health insurance on Social Security and Medicare, it would have been cheaper, simpler, and more widely accepted by the public. And Republicans would be hollering anyway.

I think that this is the point where a lot of liberals are yelling at their computer screens and asking why didn't we just go with single payer in the first place if the Republicans were going to freak out anyway?

However, considering how aggressively the Right Wing is working to stop Obamacare now, just imagine how much worse it would have been if the Dems had tried to shove universal health care down their throats. And yes, it COULD be worse.

I think the interesting thing is that the President attempted to offer the Republicans numerous reasons why they should embrace this health care law, essentially including almost all of the compromises that they had demanded in the past, and yet they STILL could not bring themselves to support it.

Sort of deflates that whole, "If only the President had been willing to compromise with us" argument doesn't it?

Source

Okay I know it is done as a joke, but it is also kind of scary how accurate it feels.

Source

Freedom Watch and I call upon all Tea Party, conservative, libertarian, and other groups and all persons, indeed to all patriotic citizens, to converge on Washington D.C., en masse, on November 19, 2013, and demand the resignations of President Barack Hussein Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and House Speaker John Boehner. We want all concerned activist groups to partner with us in our fight to restore the integrity of our nation and our Constitution.

I. INTRODUCTION by Larry Klayman

A. Knowledgeable and concerned Americans know that the United States is in great danger. Barack Hussein Obama has driven the country into the ground and the political opposition has allowed this to happen. The nation is on the verge of economic, social, and strategic collapse, as the people’s grievances are being continually ignored.

B. Short of violent revolution which we hope to avoid, civil disobedience in the style of Mahatma Gandhi in India and South Africa, Lech Walesa in Poland, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, and most recently, democracy-minded Egyptians in Tahir Square, must be employed urgently before the nation goes under for the count.

II. SPEAKERS Who Have Been Persecuted by Obama’s Regime

We propose bringing some of the victims of President Obama’s administration and have them give their testimony about how they have been harmed by him and his enablers. Such victims will include by not be limited to the widows and parents of those who died at Benghazi, other military families whose sons or daughters have been sacrificed based on Obama’s Muslim outreach which favors protecting the Islamic enemy over our own troops, those who have been audited and harassed by the IRS, spied upon by the NSA, victimized by illegal immigration, persecuted by ObamaCare, and those who feel that the U.S. Constitution is being trampled on as a matter of course and that their freedoms are being subverted and destroyed.

A. Benghazi-gate Victim
B. Navy SEAL-gate Victim
C. Fast and Furious Victim
D. IRS Victim
E. NSA Victim
F. ObamaCare Victim
G. Illegal Immigration Victim
H. Other Speakers

III. CAMP OUT Until We Get Results

We must have the means to literally camp in Washington D.C. and not leave until we get results.

IV. MILLIONS TO OCCUPY WASHINGTON D.C

In conjunction with the masses gathered in LaFayette Park, we encourage millions to occupy parks, sidewalks, public areas, etc., consistent with the law. This has never been done before, but as Thomas Paine said, “these are the times that try men’s souls.”

Contact Freedom Watch at daj142182@gmail.com or (424) 274-2579. www.reclaimamericanow.net

* Renamed from “Occupy Washington” PDF: http://www.reclaimamericanow.net/pdf/agenda.pdf




Source

(Oct. 28, 2013) — On Monday, The Post & Email interviewed a former attorney who played a part in the filing of a Notice in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington relating to probable cause of the forgery of the birth certificates of Barack Hussein Obama.

Montgomery Blair Sibley has himself been seeking a court to rule on whether or not Obama should be permitted to serve as President of the United States based on his questionable constitutional eligibility. Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires the president and commander-in-chief to be a “natural born Citizen.” Sibley has also sought redress for the crime he alleges was committed by Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson, who misrepresented herself as an Article III judge when she signed a dismissal of indictments against formerly-accused domestic terrorist Elizabeth Ann Duke in June 2009.

Just as concerning was the dismissal of the indictments for which Robinson has not provided elucidation in response to Sibley’s FOIA requests.

The filer of the Notice, Douglas Vogt, has a background in typesetting and scanning and asserts “20 points of forgery” of the long-form birth certificate image as well as charges of conspiracy, fraud and other crimes on the part of several “John Does” and “Jane Does.”

The Notice is 106 pages, and an accompanying memorandum is six pages.

Notice Doug Vogt 10-18-13

Memo Doug Vogt 10-18-13

The memo asserts that “the public interest” requires the court to summon one or more grand juries to investigate Vogt’s claims, citing historical instances wherein grand juries conducted their own investigations independent of a judge, attorney or prosecutor and issued presentments for prosecution. The Fifth Amendment is the only place in America’s founding documents where the grand jury and its role are invoked.

Two years ago, a state grand jury’s findings were termed a “presentment” rather than an indictment, which is issued by a grand jury after a prosecutor presents evidence to it for review.

As recently as October 13, a county grand jury’s conclusions that adequate evidence existed to charge two township supervisors with crimes were called “a presentment.”

In some cases, grand juries are used but are operated illegally or are unduly pressured by county prosecutors.

In 1989, an “ambushed grand jury” was investigating government corruption but was threatened into silence. Over the last four years, CDR Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III (Ret.) has attempted to present evidence of his allegations against Obama for treason and fraud to a county, state or federal grand jury but has been met with denials by prosecutors and judges as well as an illegally-serving county grand jury foreman. “Grand juries are what make us a republic,” Fitzpatrick has said.

The Post & Email has asked members of Congress to convene a special grand jury to analyze the evidence of forgery, fraud, government corruption, and conspiracy which may have been involved in the ascension to the presidency by Barack Hussein Obama.

The Post & Email has reported extensively on the erosion of the grand jury once used in the colonies and after the American Revolution to the point where today, grand juries are just a shadow of their original powerful presence. While some states have legislated away grand juries, others have stopped empaneling them, substituting the supplying of “information” to a prosecutor.

However, in New York State and across the country, Common Law Grand Juries are forming and demanding that judges follow the U.S. Constitution and respective state constitutions by allowing the people to make decisions about guilt, innocence, restitution, and punishment.

We asked Mr. Sibley if he wrote the Notice, to which he responded, “I’m not the author, but let’s say I provided some material assistance to Doug to get it into the system.”

THE POST & EMAIL: When did the idea to file the document in a federal court and ask for a federal grand jury review of the evidence arise?

MR. SIBLEY: For me, it came up about six months ago when the Supreme Court refused to review a DC Circuit Court opinion in a lawsuit I filed in which I asked the court to enforce my statutory right to contact the grand jury with evidence of criminal behavior. I sued, saying that I had asked Eric Holder to present evidence of criminal behavior to a grand jury under a specific federal statute. He was refusing to do it; I asked the court to force him to do it the way other courts have forced U.S. attorneys to present evidence to grand juries. The DC court said, “No, we’re not going to enforce the statute, and, by the way, we don’t think the statute is constitutional, so you have no right to get your evidence to the grand jury.

So that said, I had to find another way to get to the grand jury, and that’s when my path crossed with Doug Vogt.

THE POST & EMAIL: It used to be that grand juries ran themselves without prosecutors acting as gatekeepers.

MR. SIBLEY: There’s been a concentration of power in this country into fewer and fewer hands, starting in the 1890s to the 1920. In the 1940s, they got rid of the idea that you could even have a presentment, which is a constitutional right in the Fifth Amendment.

THE POST & EMAIL: Walter Fitzpatrick has asked numerous times to present evidence to a grand jury and has been ignored or told “no.”

To your knowledge, has Mr. Vogt received a response to the Notice?

MR. SIBLEY: I checked PACER on Friday and the court hasn’t ruled yet. I don’t expect the court to rule any time soon, quite frankly.

THE POST & EMAIL: It shouldn’t be up to the court, should it?

MR. SIBLEY: Apparently, the people no longer can get to the grand jury. The only people who can get to the grand jury are the U.S. attorney, who has an obvious conflict in presenting evidence of his own criminal behavior to a grand jury, and our 625 federal judges. By statute, a federal judge can convene and present evidence to a grand jury, and in fact, under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, they’re obligated to present that evidence when it’s in the “public interest.” So the actual question is, “Is there evidence of a forged birth certificate of the president of the United States in the public interest to explore?” I don’t know how you can come up with any other evidence than that there is and that the grand jury must have the opportunity to investigate that.

THE POST & EMAIL: Some might say that there is no more compelling reason to present something to a grand jury than that someone has produced forged documentation for the de facto President of the United States who may not even be a U.S. citizen.

MR. SIBLEY: That’s the concern. With the quality of Doug Vogt’s analytical, forensic, expert opinion, I think you’re at the grand jury. Could Doug be 100% wrong? Let’s entertain that possibility, but that’s not the question. The question is, “Is there probable cause to believe he may be right?” I don’t know how you can read the public affidavit and think otherwise. The judge has seen the sealed affidavit now, and that is more than icing on the cake to show that lock, stock and barrel, you’ve got a real problem that only a grand jury can resolve.

THE POST & EMAIL: Did Mr. Vogt present evidence he gathered himself, or did he work with someone?

MR. SIBLEY: I know he and Paul Irey consulted on this, but Doug came up with his own conclusions that you saw. The evidence he presented is really forensic evidence. It isn’t “I saw somebody do something;” it’s “Look at this document; look at that document,” and there’s only one conclusion you can draw from the evidence he objectively presents.

THE POST & EMAIL: Why do you think the court will not act swiftly?

MR. SIBLEY: The way courts work generally, and the implications of this…and if they’ve already referred it to the grand jury, no one is going to know about it because they’re not going to publicize that fact. So we may not know anything one way or the other.

Doug asked the court to give him release of liability under the misprision statute that he cited saying, “You’ve discharged your duties, so you can’t be charged. Whether the judge will give him that courtesy or not, I don’t know. There are two federal statutes that say if you have knowledge of a felony, you have to tell a federal judge or law enforcement officer. That’s called “misprision,” and there’s misprision of felony and misprision of treason. Under that statute, Doug went in and said, “I have knowledge of a felony, and it’s the felony of the forgery of the president’s birth certificate and the other crimes associated with that. Therefore, I’m discharging my legal obligation to give the hue and cry from common law, which is the misprision statute, and say, “Here’s the felony. Now I’ve discharged my obligation; please acknowledge that you’ve received this so that I’ve proved that I’ve done so.”

When we call 911, it’s proven that we called because it’s recorded.

When we file with the clerk, we don’t know whether or not the federal judge has seen it or not, so there’s an obligation with the judge to acknowledge that he’s seen it. The next step would be John Does and Jane Does and other people getting target letters from a federal grand jury, and then we’ll know what the judge has done.

THE POST & EMAIL: Please explain what “target letters” are.

MR. SIBLEY: Briefly, if I’m a federal prosecutor and I have proof against someone to present to a federal grand jury, I’m obligated to send a letter to the person so that he has the right to come in and give his side of the story to the grand jury, but he is now a target of the investigation. So the nest step is really going to be whether or not people start receiving target letters from a grand jury and whether the court appoints a special prosecutor to pursue it.

THE POST & EMAIL: Would Mr. Vogt receive a letter asking him to appear before the grand jury to present the evidence if all the way you would hope it would?

MR. SIBLEY: Yes, he’ll be contacted by the special prosecutor; he would be issued a subpoena to come in and testify, to tell what he knows, and to explain the affidavit in more detail.

THE POST & EMAIL: Do you think the grand jury would be given the freedom that they used to have, before prosecutors directed them? Could it be made to understand that they have a lot more power than they think?

MR. SIBLEY: I have a wonderful little pamphlet I’ve written about “Your Rights as a Grand Juror” which I’m certain will find a way to get to the grand jury when the time is appropriate.

THE POST & EMAIL: Many people are unaware of the function of a grand jury and the fact that they used to hold public officials to account.

MR. SIBLEY: The greatest fear of elected officials is a grand jury because they have no control over it. Once that door closes and those 23 citizens start doing what they want to do and issuing subpoenas and obligating you to testify whether you want to or not… Remember, there is no Fifth Amendment privilege in the grand jury. That is why the scope of the grand jury has become so circumscribed. Mr. Vogt gave that quote: instead of a bulwark against tyranny, it’s now a tool of the Executive Branch.

THE POST & EMAIL: Is there anything you’d like to add in closing?

MR. SIBLEY: Only that this isn’t the last effort. There’s another round that’s coming in a week or ten days.

The Post & Email interviewed Sibley and researcher Martha Trowbridge last week on the WheresObamasBirthCertificate radio show founded and hosted by Michael Volin.

Source link. © 2013, The Post & Email. All rights reserved.



Source

Source

Source

- Image Credit: Daily Caller -

Obama Cousin Dr. Milton Wolf: Obama Doesn't Understand America; He's Destroying America...




Source

Fox News: Team Obama Raid Reporter's Home; Exposed Confidential Sources...

- Image Credit: Secrets of the Fed -

Source

Courtesy of the ABC News:

A federal judge has ruled that new abortion restrictions passed by the Texas Legislature are unconstitutional and should not take effect as planned on Tuesday.

District Judge Lee Yeakel issued his decision Monday following a three-day trial over whether the state can restrict when, where and how women obtain abortions in Texas.

Lawyers for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers argued that the regulations did not protect women and would shut down a third of the abortion clinics in Texas.

The Texas attorney general's office argued that the law protects women and the life of the fetus. State officials are expected to file an emergency appeal of Yeakel's order to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

The proposed restrictions were among the toughest in the nation.

These, of course, are the same restrictions, that Wendy Davis courageously filibustered 11 hours to stop.

Not at all surprising to have them found unconstitutional.

But if women of Texas really wants to protest their reproductive rights, they know what they need to do.




Source