WILL VOTE FRAUD DETERMINE UPCOMING PRIMARIES – AGAIN?

© 2010 – NewsWithViews.com

Vote fraud. I have been writing about it since 1993. The Republican and Democratic parties are well greased, well run corrupt enterprises who did nothing to stop the fraud and in fact, opened the door for more: National Voter Registration Act of 1993 aka Motor Voter Law, which opened the flood gates for fraud. While this was 2001, it’s only gotten worse:

“A recent study in Georgia found more than 15,000 dead people on active voting rolls statewide. Alaska, according to Federal Election Commission, had 502,968 names on its voter rolls in 1998. The census estimates only 437,000 people of voting age were living in the state that year…

“A cursory check of the registration cards turned up questionable names. Shortly thereafter, election board workers spent an entire day calling the names listed on the cards and found that nearly all of them were fraudulent. Many of them sought to register prominent people, dead or alive – as well as at least three deceased aldermen and a dog. The media have reported that close examinations have turned up cards that attempted to register prominent businessmen using their childhood addresses, a former deputy mayor using an old address for an alderman, and a former alderman who has been dead for years.

“They also found cards for convicted felons and for residents who did not seek to register themselves in the primary. The woman at the center of this vote fraud investigation “doesn’t deny” that some of her canvassers may have turned in bogus voter registration cards. A grand jury convened by St. Louis Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce has begun interviewing witnesses regarding the 3,800 bogus registration cards. St. Louis police have obtained a warrant and searched the house of the Operation Big Vote director for evidence.

“Not surprisingly, many St. Louis residents are angry that someone had registered them and knew information such as their Social Security numbers. Some of the people registered by the bogus cards told Election Board workers that someone calling himself “Big Mike” came to their homes and said he was with the Election Board and wanted to register them…..

Complete Story:

60+ Lawmakers 7 States Tell Obama; if you want on 2012 ballot, RELEASE THE RECORDS!

The Betrayal

Obama Release Your Records published

3 more states, South Carolina, New Hampshire and Indiana have joined Arizona in proposing bills requiring proof of Article II Eligibility for POTUS. Does this mean this is no longer a crazy, fringe conspiracy theory movement?

Snippets from Washington Independent; ‘Birther’ Conspiracy Roils GOP Campaigns – State Legislators, Party Strategists Keep Anti-Obama Rumors Alive –

South Carolina-Bill 3389, freshman state Rep. Tommy Stringer has introduced legislation that would amend the state’s election code to make sure that “a candidate for President or Vice President of the United States may not have his name printed on a ballot in this State unless there is conclusive evidence that he is a natural born citizen of the United States.”…

New Hampshire’s House bill 1245, mandates that “the names of the candidates shall not appear on the ballot unless the secretary of state has received certified copies of the birth certificates of the candidates.”

Indiana’s Senate bill 82, grapples with the legal standing issue that has vexed “birthers,” granting the right to challenge qualifications to “a registered voter of the jurisdiction conducting the election.”… …more from the Obot’s HERE.

Arizona House bill 2441, titled: presidential candidates; proof of qualifications

…Within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate’s citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate’s age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States… …view entire Arizona bill HERE.

Other states are also joining the war to defend our constitution. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures; New York, Virginia, Georgia and other states are also working on the same type legislation. …more HERE.

Also, let us not forget the federal bill proposed by Bill Posey of Florida; H.R.1503 – Presidential Eligibility Act –

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee’s statement of organization a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution…

…Congress finds that under – the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years. …view entire bill HERE.

We should contact our elected officials in our respective states and push for the same type of action. Contact info for all Elected Officials, HERE; http://conservativeusa.org/mega-cong.htm

Source:

Obama’s Government without Love

By Stuart Schwartz

God made it official through Paul, the first century rabbi who dabbled in community organizing, that “love is more important than anything else.” The Doobie Brothers (neither rabbis nor community organizers) rephrased it for the modern age: “Without love, where would you be now, without love?”

This question was answered by Barack Obama and Democratic Party leadership as they sat around the Blair House banquet table at the health care summit this past Thursday, determined to push and pull a protesting citizenry into a loveless future.
Welcome to the United States of Obama. Without love, this is where we are now.
Gone is the love of the founders for individuals “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” It has been replaced by the derision of a political and media elite — David Brooks of the New York Times proudly calls this the “intellectual class” — determined to control every part of the lives of those they judge “too dumb” (Time magazine) to be allowed choice.
Forget the God talk and the founder mumbo-jumbo about individual worth, Obama and friends say. We need to take charge of the “dodos.” The Communist Chinese have it right, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman writes wistfully, in ruling “from the top down.”
Obama and the Democrats must take control of our citizens, the Times urged after the summit, and ignore widespread opposition. Citizens need to know their place, and their place is to do what the intellectual class says.
Arrogance? No, it is just an emerging order of privilege, largely liberal and Democratic, in which elites live by a different set of rules. Case in point: Federal and city tax dollars went to build a New York Times headquarters that had a restrictive lease that the Village Voice described as “‘Times’ to Commoners: Go Elsewhere.” Meanwhile, Congress exempts its own from Obamacare.
And so choice is no longer to be an option in health and medical services. As the Blair House summit showed, Obama and congressional leaders relentlessly continue to push government control over individuals, all the while adding to their personal power and wealth through confiscatory taxes and regulation.
Without love, the average citizen is biodegradable fuel for the lifestyles of the elite and powerful. And it is why an 86-year-old New Jersey senator gets life-saving cancer surgery to be denied under the proposed Obamacare rules for the rest of us. And once Obamacare is established, he would still get the surgery — while a senior not in Congress will not.
Listen up, people, they say: The senator may be old, but he is one of us. And you — you’re just old, of no “instrumental value,” as the president’s Ivy League social engineers put it. Don’t let the coffin lid hit you on the way out.

Drilling Ban To Cost Trillions

Investors.com

Energy: A new study shows that our reluctance to develop domestic energy will cost the beleaguered U.S. economy trillions in opportunity costs, reduce our gross domestic product and increase our trade deficit.

From trying to stimulate jobs in nonexistent ZIP codes at great expense to worshiping the false gods of climate change, our biggest deficit these days may be in the area of common sense. A new study shows that many of our wounds are self-inflicted as we forgo the wealth and jobs to be found in our waters and under our feet.

The study by Science Applications International Corp. at the request of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, the Gas Technology Institute and others shows the U.S. economy will suffer $2.3 trillion in lost opportunity costs over the next two decades, monies that would go a long way to reining in runaway deficits and creating economic growth.

Critics will say this is another self-serving study paid for by oil industry groups, but unlike the climate change fantasies concocted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Britain’s Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, the study’s data can survive fact-checking and the conclusions are rooted in reality.

Drilling restrictions in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in offshore areas such as the Chukchi Sea and Outer Continental Shelf, the report says, are denying us access to at least nine years’ worth of total U.S. oil and gas consumption.

The U.S. used 22.8 trillion feet of gas and 5.2 billion barrels of oil in 2009. Locked up by federal restrictions are approximately 43 billion barrels of oil and 286 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Without access to these resources, average natural gas prices will rise 17% by 2030 and electricity prices will “necessarily skyrocket,” as Barack Obama once said, by 5%.

The net effect of our energy inaction will be a reduction in gross domestic product by $2.36 trillion cumulatively through 2029, or by 0.52% annually. We’d also be forgoing hundreds of thousands of high-paying energy and construction sector jobs here in the U.S. as well as missing a golden opportunity to sharply cut our trade deficit.

These are not climate fantasies derived by running faulty assumptions and bad data through inaccurate computer models. This is simple math, common sense and Economics 101. Energy is expensive. We’re leaving vast amounts in the ground while importing it from others. In a word: duh.

Source:

More Guns, Less Crime

Big Government

by John Lott

The District of Columbia’s murder rate plummeted by an astounding 25 percent last year, much faster than for the US as a whole or for similarly sized cities. If you had asked Chicago’s Mayor Daley, that wasn’t supposed to happen. The Supreme Court’s 2008 decision to strike down DC’s handgun ban and gunlock requirements should have lead to a surge in murders, with Wild West shootouts. The Supreme Court might keep Daley’s predictions in mind today as they hear the oral arguments on Tuesday in the Chicago handgun ban case.

GunFreeZone

Everyone in DC now knows that murder rates rose after the handgun ban and fell after they were removed. Unfortunately, Chicago never learned that lesson. The forthcoming third edition of More Guns, Less Crime shows that in the 17 years after its ban on new handguns went into effect, there are only two years where Chicago’s murder rate was as low as it was in 1982. Chicago’s murder rate fell relative to other largest 50 largest cities prior to the ban and rose relative to them afterwards. For example, Chicago’s murder rate went from equalling the average for those other cities in 1982, to exceeding their average murder rate by 32 percent in 1992 and by 68 percent in 2002. There is no year after the ban that Chicago’s murder rate fared as well relative to other cities as it did in 1982.

Similar comparisons exist for the top ten largest cities, the US as a whole, or the counties that boarder Chicago. The accompanying figure shows how Chicago’s murder rates changed relative to the rates in the adjacent counties. In the five years before the ban, Chicago’s murder rate fell by 28 percent relative to those counties. (County level crime data only goes back to 1977.) in the five years after the ban, Chicago’s murder rate doubled relative to those other counties.

It shouldn’t be to surprising that Chicago’s murder rates rose after the ban. Every time gun bans have been tried murder rates have risen. In the United States, gun ban proponents have blamed this failure on easy access to guns in nearby states. But the experience in other countries, even island nations that have gone so far as banning handguns and where borders are easy to monitor, should give gun control supporters such as Mayor Daley and some of the members of the Supreme Court some pause. Whether one looks at Ireland, Jamaica or England and Wales the experience has been the same. Not only didn’t murder rates decline as promised, but the rates actually increased.

The results also confirmed recent research showing that gunlocks increase crime by making it more difficult for citizens to use guns to protect themselves from criminals. In DC’s case, the drop in violent crime is probably more attributable to eliminating the law that guns be locked and unloaded. Relatively few handguns were licensed to the rifles and shotguns that now could be stored loaded and unlocked.

There is a certain irony that so many Chicago politicians understand the protection that handguns provide. Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass wrote in 2008 that there are two types of people who are allowed to have handguns in Chicago: “The criminals. And the politicians.” Mayor Daley has round the clock armed bodyguards. Members of the city council get to become deputized police officers.

We all want to take guns away from criminals, but all too frequently gun control laws disarm law-abiding citizens not criminals. Police are extremely important in protecting citizens, indeed probably the single most important factor. But, as the police know all too well, they almost always arrive on the crime scene after the crime has been committed. If the government can’t protect its citizens, the last thing that it should do is make the crime situation even worse.

Source:

More States Jumping on the Birther Bandwagon

The Right Side of Life

Based on a recent update to News.TheRightSideOfLife.com, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Indiana have joined Arizona in producing eligibility bills regarding the presidency (and, in some, the vice presidency). In fact, Indiana’s SB82 is all about “standing,” the ability for a certain class of citizens to rightfully petition the Judiciary with respect to a candidate.

There’s also a bit from David Weigel’s excellent posting on this story where he spoke with a reporter from NewsMax.com who has had various eligibility stories “spiked” on account of the controversy (I know — what controversy, right? You’re either eligible or not and you can either show it fully or not).

And for those following what’s going on in the great State of Arizona, apparently tea party leaders aren’t currently endorsing either former Rep. J.D. Hayworth or Sen. John McCain.

Source:

Napolitano Says People From Countries Tied to Terrorism Could ‘Potentially’ Enter USA, But DHS Reports Says Thousands Already Have

By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer


Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said the reforms being made to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s immigration detention practices will include “alternatives to detention.” (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)

(CNSNews.com) – Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told senators it is a national security concern that people from countries with ties to terrorism could ‘potentially’ gain entry into the United States by crossing the country’s southern border.

But according to the Department of Homeland Security’s own reports, thousands of people from 14 “special interest” countries already have come into the United States illegally, including some across the U.S.-Mexico border.  (The State Department designates some nations as “special interest” counties because of their links to terrorism.)

Napolitano testified before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Thursday. Her remarks on “special interest” persons came after Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) asked her about the ongoing violence in Mexico and the possibility of that violence spilling over into the United States.

“So, if the drug cartels succeeded, then it would be a matter of time before the violence would spill over onto our side of the border,” McCain said. “Not to mention the free, basically free, access they would have to bring drugs, as well as humans, into our country.”

“We haven’t seen spillover violence in that sense yet,” Napolitano said. “It is a risk. The ability to traffic in drugs cause their own damage to lives in the United States.

“Our ability to curtail that would be affected,” she said. “On the human trafficking side, it’s not solely illegal immigrants coming to work, but the ability of people from countries of special interest to immigrate into Central America and be ferried up to the border and over into the United States is also a concern.”

McCain responded: “Countries of special interest – people could come up through our southern border?”

“Potentially, yes,” Napolitano said.

Complete Story: