World News Korner

To be honest I have never personally hit a bear with my car. And I have only seen one dart out into traffic when i was a kid.

I have seen far more moose, and had a few close call with them however.

Gotta admire that bear's gymnastics ability.

Source

This was a picture posted yesterday on Palin's Facebook page.

If it seems familiar, then you may be thinking of this one of Andrew Breitbart's favorite fake pimp James O'Keefe.

Personally I think that Hanna Giles leather top is far more fetching than Todd's pink disco shirt, but then again I'm not in the market for whatever Todd and Sarah might be selling.

Maybe this is part of the dress code that Palin has to adopt now that they are the only Right Wing group willing to publish her venomous word salad diatribes.

Perhaps Palin needs to be more careful as to whom she models her look after, since things did not work out so well for O'Keefe.

Source

First part can be found here. The second part, with Key and Peele, can be found here.

I love how the minute they mention Palin's name the entire panel screams "Racist!"

And then at the end they agree that she is simply "Stupid" and "Moronic."

Source

(Nov. 14, 2013) — On October 18, 2013, Douglas Vogt submitted a Notice of Commission to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington to report two federal crimes, misprision of felony and misprision of treason, against the United States relating to the birth certificate image posted on the White House website in April 2011 purported to be that of Barack Hussein Obama.

On October 18, Washington State resident and business owner Douglas Vogt submitted a Notice of Commission to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in accordance with federal statutes, requesting the empaneling of a special grand jury to examine the evidence in his filing.

Since 2007, questions about Obama’s birthplace, background, and constitutional eligibility to hold the office of president have been raised, but Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court have “evaded the issue.”

Vogt is not challenging Obama’s eligibility, having filed the affidavits in keeping with 18 U.S.C. §4 and 18 U.S.C. §2382, which address misprision of felony and misprision of treason, respectively. The statutes mandate that anyone with knowledge of either type of crime having taken place who does not report same to “some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States” faces a fine and a prison sentence. In his submission, Vogt asked the judge to convene a special federal grand jury to examine his evidence, which consisted of a public affidavit and a sealed affidavit with more details of the alleged crimes.

Former attorney Montgomery Blair Sibley provided assistance to Vogt in preparing the Notice of Commission.

On October 29, The Post & Email interviewed Vogt about the crimes he alleged were committed in regard to the forgery of the birth certificate. On a page of his main website, Vogt lists the 20 points of forgery identified in his public affidavit.

Vogt and typesetting expert Paul Irey are working on a book about the birth certificate forgery entitled From Forgery to Treason.

On November 5, Judge James L. Robart issued a response to Vogt which claimed that his court did not have “subject matter jurisdiction” over the matter, citing previous civil lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility for the office over the last five years.

A week later, Vogt submitted his response to the court, within which he reveals that the court clerk changed the title of his original submission from “Notice of Commission” to “Vogt v. Obama” in the style of a lawsuit. Vogt explains that he did not seek the Court’s assistance in settling a “case or controversy,” citing language from Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution detailing the function of federal courts, but rather, is adhering to federal statutes governing knowledge of the commission of a crime and requesting necessary statutory action on the part of the judge to summon a grand jury.

The following is our exclusive interview with Vogt following the submission of his response.

THE POST & EMAIL: Did Mr. Sibley assist you with your reply to the court?

MR. VOGT: Yes; in fact, he used this case for his own case in Washington, DC. We did it together, but he did most of it. My impression is that because of his cases in the past, he’s spent a lot of time on the Article III issue. I would say that the court is trying to label this as a different case than what it is. This is merely reporting a crime stated by a law passed by the first Congress, second session, and it’s by obligation. The problem is that the court clerks have only two things they can file: either a criminal case of a civil case. There isn’t anything in between.

You can read the filing on obamaforgerybook.com. It’s on the left-hand-column. The first item is the judge’s reply to me, and the second is our reply to the judge.

It’s pretty simple. What we’re trying to do is give citizens the right to collect evidence and give it to a federal judge to put it to a grand jury. The evidence could be against a bureaucrat or politician. It puts some of the control and justice back into the people’s hands, which is what the Founding Fathers originally intended. The judge has the right to put it into a grand jury. The law says “a court or an attorney of the United States.” So that is what we’re doing. It caught everybody flat-footed, including the Obots. They don’t know what to make of it. Many people did not know about this part of the law.

As an accountant, I looked at the law with a fresh eye. It’s something that Congress gives the court, and it’s by statute. An honest person is supposed to report a crime.

“Standing” means if you’ve suffered a loss of some sort: physical or monetary, and how it affects you. But it has no meaning when it comes to a criminal case. This is not either: this is reporting a crime; it’s as simple as that. By judicial rule 6, I’m told, if it’s in the public’s interest, and certainly, this is, the judge has to put it into a grand jury; he really doesn’t have a choice. So this poor judge is between a rock and a hard place. That’s why they answered me the way they did; they’re trying to make it appear to be a different kind of case than it is. You can tell by my response that we basically answered that question.

If the judge still does the same thing after this, it will be appealed. It’s very clear. I don’t see how an appellate court would rule anything different than, “He has the right to be released from liability for misprision of treason and felony.”

THE POST & EMAIL: And you want an acknowledgement of your report of the crimes?

MR. VOGT: We gave them the one page to sign off already. That’s all the judge has to do. Once he does that, he’s acknowledging that a crime or crimes have been committed against the United States, and he then really has to put it to a grand jury or he could be construed as being an accessory after the fact. That’s the law; it defines what an “accessory after the fact” is.

THE POST & EMAIL: So you’re using the statutes to get the judge to acknowledge the crimes and summon a grand jury, even if you can’t get an audience before one yourself.

MR. VOGT: Yes. He’s obligated, too, because it is in the public’s interest. I presented 20 points of forgery. It’s 17,000 or 18,000 words. The sealed document even says who created the forgery and the other ones who helped. They have the whole thing. They know it. Nobody is going into the evidence I presented; definitely not the Obots. They’re too scared, because it involves some of them; I’m sure they must realize that. Nothing like making them sweat, turning the tables on them. They just didn’t realize I was going to go for the throat. This is how you do it: you do it using your brains, not a lot of verbiage and cursing and Saul Alinsky tactics. I don’t have to.

THE POST & EMAIL: Propaganda…

MR. VOGT: Yes, the “big lie.” No, I’m going for the throat. I did it nice and quietly and just dumped it on them, and now they understand what I’ve done.

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

RELATED: Document Expert Files Response To Order To Show Cause In Obama Fraud Notice;


Source

A Tesla Motors Inc. vehicle is displayed during the 2013 North American International Auto Show in Detroit, Michigan, on Jan. 15, 2013.




Read Full Article Source here
Author:
By Jordan Weissmann of The Atlantic

File photo of Model Murphy-Thomas posing with The Pink Star diamond at Sotheby's auction house in central London.


Read Full Article Source here
Author: By Stephanie Nebehay 'Pink Star' diamond sells for world record at auctionof Reuters

A passenger and a security camera witnessed the woman jump off the 1,300-cabin Grand Princess ship (pictured) into the Pacific Ocean about 650 miles northeast of Hilo, Hawaii.


Read Full Article Source here
Author:
By Eric M. Johnson of Reuters

Courtesy of Swampland:

Obama, speaking at the White House, again acknowledged shortcomings with the problem-plagued Healthcare.gov insurance exchange website, but said the reform law is already showing successes, especially with the expansion of Medicaid coverage.

“I think it’s fair to say that the roll-out has been rough so far,” he said. “There is no question that if the website were working like it’s supposed to, [early enrollment numbers] would be higher.

“We fumbled the roll-out on this health care law,” Obama said bluntly.

The president’s announcement partly corrects his infamous promise that “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan,” at least for a year. Insurers will be allowed to offer those plans, many of which do not provide comprehensive coverage, to existing customers in the individual market for a year, as long as they educate those re-enrolling about the alternatives in the health care law’s insurance marketplaces.

“I completely get how upsetting [losing insurance] could be for many Americans, especially after they heard assurances from me,” Obama said. “We’re going to do everything we can to help Americans who are receiving these cancellation notices.”

“There is no doubt that the way I put that forward unequivocally ended up not being accurate,” Obama added. “My working assumption was that the majority of those folks would find better policies and lower costs or the same costs in the marketplaces.”

Before Obama spoke, a senior White House official said that “insurers can offer customers the option to renew their 2013 plan in 2014 without change, allowing these people to keep their plans.”

According to senior White House officials, the regulatory solution would remove the need for legislative action that is being pushed by both parties on Capitol Hill. One bill, offered by Republican Rep. Fred Upton, would allow those less comprehensive plans to be sold to new customers. The officials said such a plan “would undermine the Affordable Care Act and the marketplaces.” The White House has been skeptical of any legislative solution, which would quickly become a Christmas tree for amendments to undermine the bill.

“I will not accept proposals that are just another brazen attempt to undermine or repeal the law,” Obama said.

I do not see this as much of a solution to the problem, and worry that Obama is simply succumbing to political pressure.

I watched the President live this morning during the Alex Wagner show, which had Howard Dean on as a guest, and Dean could barely contain his frustration. A frustration that I share by the way,.

However I am not at all sure that the President had much of a choice, especially after Bill Clinton pulled the rug out from under him the other day.

By the way, and not to get all Alex Jones here, but I am having a very hard time not thinking that the website roll out was sabotaged from within. There has already been some good reporting on that here, but I think that might just be the tip of the iceberg.

The President also had this to say about the website glitches:

OK. On the website, I was not informed directly that the website would not be working as -- the way it was supposed to. Has I been informed, I wouldn't be going out saying, boy, this is going to be great. You know, I'm accused of a lot of things, but I don't think I'm stupid enough to go around saying, this is going to be like shopping on Amazon or Travelocity, a week before the website opens, if I thought that it wasn't going to work.

So, clearly, we and I did not have enough awareness about the problems in the website. Even a week into it, the thinking was that these were some glitches that would be fixed with patches, as opposed to some broader systemic problems that took much longer to fix and we're still working on them.

Okay, how is THAT possible that nobody told the President of the United States that he was essentially lying to the American people? That really does not seem accidental, and I get the feeling that he was not the only one who had a vested interest in getting this website operating who was kept in the dark.

You can read the transcript of the speech for yourself here.

Source

So this interview is with Newsmax, which many of you may remember used to offer free issues of her "Going Rogue" book with a subscription back in the day.

So of course you know they are completely non-biased.

The interviewer is some guy named Joe Concha, who I have never heard of, and he starts off asking her about Chris Christie.

Palin: "I think what the suggested question here is 'How would he do in a presidential race,' 'How would he do nation wide?' That remains to be seen. Because so many Americans, me included, me being a proud participant in that grassroots movement that is referred to as the Tea Party. We are tired of politicians kind of vacillating on some very fundamental issues. Say..um..amnesty for one, let's talk one specific issue. When we are a pro-immigration nation we want people to come in recognizing how exceptional America is, we want them to work hard for the awesome benefits and blessings of America. But we want, right out of the shoot, them not to break our law. Because we are governed by laws."

(Apparently as opposed to wherever these dirty non-Americans come from which is probably governed by nothing more than games of rock, paper, scissors.)

Concha tries to get some kind of rational response from Palin instead of this chaotic word sausage, so he suggests that perhaps it is on cultural issues, like gay marriage or immigraion that she disagrees with Christie.

Palin: "I just absolutely want to make sure that the next GOP candidate can so excite, and encourage, and empower the American people, that we want to get out there and vote FOR that person, and FOR their message, and FOR their agenda, instead of just voting against the statist, big government, socialized policies that now doubt the far left Democrat will be representing. I want, we want something to vote FOR not just AGAINST."

(It seems to escape Palin's notice that she is only speaking for a tiny part of the Republican party, and that a candidate who she would eagerly vote FOR would NEVER get the nomination, and if they did would suffer a crushing defeat in the 2016 election.)

Concha then reminds Palin that she accused Christie of "going along just to get along."

Palin: " Too often that is what we see, and not just necessarily Chris Christie, but so many politicians think that this is the time to compromise with the Left. Take Obamacare, politicians ran on the idea of replacing Obamacare with something that is market centered, patient centered, something that allows competition in the marketplace of health care coverage. (Does she not realize that she just described The Affordable Care Act?) And yet when it came time to stand up and defund it, which is the legislative tool that Congress holds to get rid of a policy that is absolutely a train wreck for this country, too many politicians waved the white flag instead and did not stand with Senators like Tex Cruz and Mike Lee who were fulfilling their campaign promise to do all that they could to defund, to replace Obamacare. So that's a disappointment."

Concha then reminds her that the government was partially shutdown, and that she referred to it as a "slimdown."

Palin: "Oh yeah a slimdown, oh yeah what? Sixteen days of 17% of the government kinda turning down the volume of its expenditures and its activities, that was not a shutdown."

Palin then went on to blame the "Lamestram media for not reporting that the shutdown was the fault of President Obama and Harry Reid, and instead blamed it on the Republicans. (You know, the ones who actually shut down the government.) Palin also said that if it were up to her she would do the same thing, with "better" messaging" this time.

Concha then returns to Chris Christie and asks if she would support him if he got the nomination.

Palin: "It depends on who else is out there at the time. I’m not so anti-Chris Christie that, certainly, it’s not like I wouldn’t give him a chance to make sure that what it is that he stands for, and his record would have tor reflect, this recognition that America's going bankrupt and we can;t rely on the federal government to continue to bail out businesses and communities (Super storm Sandy anyone?), and...um..that..then making our freedoms fade and making our free market be stifled. I would want to make sure that any candidate, not just Chris Christie, understands the import of empowering the people, individuals, our own businesses, our own families to make decisions for ourselves, not big government."

Okay that is enough for me. That last statement may have broken my brain.

I will add however that Palin is asked if she would support one of her kids running for public office, and surprise, surprise, she would.

Do you hear that Trig? You're going to be the Mayor!

(H/T to Mediaite.)

Source

Courtesy of Swampland:

Gallup announced that Congress had reached a new low, winning the approval of just 9% of the American public. This breaks Congress’s record nadir from last year, when the amount of Americans who thought lawmakers were doing a good job dipped to 10%.

Gallup has been asking Americans how they feel about how Congress is handling its work for 39 years, and the average approval rating since 1974 is 33%. Affirmation hit its high in 2001, following the Sept. 11 attacks, at 56%. As to why approval ratings now equal the number of letters in Harry Reid’s name, pollsters said that “Americans’ views of Congress have not recovered” from the government shutdown. Even with all the media focus on Obamacare snafus, they note, lawmakers couldn’t sneak out of the doghouse.

Yes it could be argued that the President's poll numbers are also down, now around 44%, but let's face it, there is a HELL of a lot of difference between 44% and 9%.

Let's face it STD's and Adolph Hitler now poll better than the Republican led Congress.

THAT should indicate a complete reorganization of the Congress, and replacement of its more partisan members, but of course politics is all local, so we will see if this has any impact in the next elections cycle.

I kind of think that it might.

Source

Courtesy of the Guardian:

The MI6 spy found dead in a bag three years ago probably locked himself in the holdall and died as a result of a tragic accident, Scotland Yard has said.

Outlining the results of a three-year investigation on Wednesday, the Metropolitan police said Gareth Williams most likely died alone in his flat.

But Detective Assistant Commissioner Martin Hewitt said the police could not "fundamentally and beyond doubt" rule out the possibility that a third party was involved in his death.

Williams's naked body was found in the padlocked bag, with the keys discovered under his body, in the otherwise empty bath in his flat in Pimlico, central London, in August 2010.

Last year, a coroner concluded that Williams was probably unlawfully killed and his death the result of a criminal act. Following an eight-day inquest, the Westminster coroner, Dr Fiona Wilcox, said he was probably either suffocated or poisoned, before a third party locked and placed the bag in the bath.

But Hewitt said Scotland Yard's three-year inquiry had come to a different conclusion and that Williams was "most probably" alone when he died.

"Despite all of this considerable effort, it is still the case that there is insufficient evidence to be definitive on the circumstances that led to Gareth's death," he said.

"Rather, what we are left with is either individual pieces of evidence, or a lack of such evidence, that can logically support one of a number of hypotheses."

Hewitt added that the investigation had added "some clarity and detail" to the case, but that "no evidence has been identified to establish the full circumstances of Gareth's death beyond all reasonable doubt".

Look I don't want to tell Scotland Yard how to do their job but.....no scratch that, I really DO want to tell them how to do their job.

Listen when you find a naked dead guy locked in a bag, with the keys on the OUTSIDE of the bag, that pretty much rules out "accidental death."

I mean don't you think?

Seriously DON'T you think?

even if we were to entertain the possibility that this guy some hoe got off on zipping himself up naked in various pieces of luggage, HOW would locking the bag enhance that experience?

And while we are on the subject HOW in the fuck do you lock a bag from the inside, while leaving the keys on the outside?

My new rules is that if I am ever inclined to kill anybody I am flying us both to England first because apparently there you can get away with ANYTHING!

Update: Okay it appears that I read the part about the keys incorrectly, and that they were inside the bag instead of outside the bag. This changes the story from completely impossible to virtually impossible.

I continue to stand by my WTF response however.

Source

Former Federal Prosecutor: Obama Guilty Of Serial Fraud; Impeachment And Removal...

A few days ago former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy penned a blistering piece at National Review Online accusing Obama of massive fraud for repeatedly lying about Obamacare. Last night McCarthy appeared on Fox News' The Kelly Files to take his argument to the masses:


McCarthy wrote at National Review Online:

The Justice Department is notoriously aggressive when it comes to material omissions by public corporations. Any public statement — not just in a required SEC filing but in any public context — may be deemed actionable if its purpose is to deceive the general public about a company’s condition. For example, as I’ve noted before, the Justice Department indicted Martha Stewart for fraud over press statements that did not disclose damaging information about her company.

Ms. Stewart, naturally, was fearful that truthful statements would send the stock price plummeting. Obama, by comparison, was not lying merely to prevent a company from losing value. His fraud was, first, to induce passage of a plan designed gradually to destroy the private health-insurance market — a plan that barely passed and never would have been enacted if he’d been honest. And later, his fraud was to procure his reelection and the guaranteed implementation of Obamacare; had he been honest, he would have been defeated and Obamacare forestalled.

Barack Obama is guilty of fraud — serial fraud — that is orders of magnitude more serious than frauds the Justice Department routinely prosecutes, and that courts punish harshly. The victims will be out billions of dollars, quite apart from other anxiety and disruption that will befall them.

The president will not be prosecuted, of course, but that is immaterial. As discussed here before, the remedy for profound presidential corruption is political, not legal. It is impeachment and removal. “High crimes and misdemeanors” — the Constitution’s predicate for impeachment — need not be indictable offenses under the criminal code. “They relate chiefly,” Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 65, “to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” They involve scandalous breaches of the public trust by officials in whom solemn fiduciary duties are reposed — like a president who looks Americans in the eye and declares, repeatedly, that they can keep their health insurance plans . . . even as he studiously orchestrates the regulatory termination of those plans; even as he shifts blame to the insurance companies for his malfeasance — just as he shifted blame to a hapless video producer for his shocking dereliction of duty during the Benghazi massacre. [...] - Continued @ National Review Online.





Source

Obama Firewall: Lawmakers Introducing Articles Of Impeachment Against AG Eric Holder...

Roll Call is reporting GOP Lawmakers plan to formally introduce articles of impeachment against Attorney General Eric Holder on Thursday for his roll in various scandals ranging from arming cartels to domestic spying.

Excerpt via Roll Call:

Texas Republican Pete Olson, who is leading the charge behind the Holder articles of impeachment, said this wasn’t a decision he took lightly.

“Since the House voted in 2012 to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt, the pattern of disregard for the rule of law and refusal to be forthright has continued,” Olson said in a statement to CQ Roll Call. “The American people deserve answers and accountability. If the Attorney General refuses to provide answers, then Congress must take action.”

Olson told CQ Roll Call that he would be dropping the articles of impeachment Thursday. On Wednesday, he released a five-page white paper explaining the four articles of impeachment against Holder.

Article I of the impeachment proceedings claims that Holder “engaged in a pattern of conduct incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him” by refusing to comply with a subpoena issued by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee for documents related to “a legitimate congressional investigation into Operation Fast and Furious by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms that put thousands of illegally-purchased weapons into the hands of cartel leaders, ultimately resulting in the death of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry on December 14, 2010.”

“The Justice Department deliberately withheld documents, preventing the Committee from performing its constitutional duty to conduct oversight of the Executive Branch,” the white paper said, noting that any person who “willfully makes default” of a congressional subpoena is in violation of federal law.

President Barack Obama exercised executive privilege over those documents, but that does not satisfy the group.

“Despite the President’s dubious claim of executive privilege, Attorney General Holder violated federal law by failing to turn over lawfully subpoenaed documents requested by Congress,” the section-by-section analysis of the impeachment proceedings claims.

Article II of the proceedings charges that Holder violated his oath of office by refusing to enforce certain laws that the Obama administration, for various reasons, decided not to enforce, including the Defense of Marriage Act, which the administration deemed unconstitutional.

“If the Administration wants to change the law, it should ask Congress to amend it. Only the Supreme Court can deem laws unconstitutional,” the white paper said. [...] Continued at Roll Call.





Source

I think we need a secular word for "Amen."

Because I really want to say amen to this.

Source

That is a picture of Saturn taken by NASA's Cassini probe.

I thought that after a day of fighting over politics, religion, and holidays it might be nice to recognize how petty our silly differences are when put into perspective.

We may feel that we are the center of the universe, and the most important creatures in existence, but the first is simply untrue and the second? Well the second has not yet been determined.

However if I had to venture a guess.

Source