WPEC-TV CBS12 News :: News - Top Stories - UPDATED: Recount under way in St. Lucie County, but not for Rep. Allen West
Si vis pacem parabellum If I agreed with you, we would both be wrong We can thank public education for American gullibility... When did individualism and self reliance come to depend on the government? "A Liberal is a person who will give away everything he doesn't own." Capital punishment means never having to say, "You again?" Liberals Use Guilt As Moral Weapon Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
22 Signs That Voter Fraud Is Wildly Out Of Control And The Election Was A Sham | Market Daily News
22 Signs That Voter Fraud Is Wildly Out Of Control And The Election Was A Sham | Market Daily News
Michael Snyder: After what we have seen this November, how is any American ever supposed to trust the integrity of our elections ever again? There were over 70,000 reports of voting problems on election day, and there are numerous eyewitnesses that claim that they saw voting machines change votes for one candidate to another candidate right in front of their eyes. In several of the swing states there were counties where the number of registered voters exceeded the total voting age population by a very wide margin. How in the world does that happen? Some of the vote totals that were reported in some of the most important swing states were completely and totally absurd, and yet we are just supposed to accept them on blind faith without ever being able to ask any questions. Of course the Romney campaign has already totally given up, so it isn’t as if there is any chance that the results of the presidential election could be overturned anyhow. But if massive election fraud did take place and nobody is held accountable, what kind of message will that send for the future? Will we ever be able to have faith in the integrity of our elections ever again?
#1 According to the Election Protection Coalition, voters across the United States reported more than 70,000 voting problems by 5 PM Eastern time on election day.
#2 There were 59 voting divisions in the city of Philadelphia where Mitt Romney did not receive a single vote. In those voting divisions, the combined vote total was 19,605 for Barack Obama and 0 for Mitt Romney.
#3 The overall voter turnout rate in Philadelphia was only about 60 percent. But in the areas of Philadelphia where Republican poll watchers were illegally removed, the voter turnout rate was over 90% and Obama received over 99% of the vote. Officials in Philadelphia have already ruled out an investigation.
#4 According to WND, one poll watcher in Pennsylvania actually claims that he witnessed voting machine software repeatedly switch votes from Mitt Romney to Barack Obama…
#6 Barack Obama received more than 98 percent of the vote in 10 out of the 50 wards in the city of Chicago.
#7 Prior to the election, voters in the states of Nevada, North Carolina, Texas and Ohio all reported that voting machines were switching their votes for Romney over to Obama.
#8 There were more than 50 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio where Mitt Romney received 2 votes or less.
#9 There were more than 100 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio where Barack Obama received more than 99 times the votes that Mitt Romney did.
#10 Barack Obama also received more than 99% of the vote in a number of very important precincts down in Broward County, Florida.
#11 Wood County, Ohio (which Obama won) has a voting age population of 98,213, but somehow 106,258 voters were registered to vote on election day.
#13 Barack Obama did not win in a single state that absolutely requires a photo I.D. in order to vote.
#14 In Ohio, two election judges were caught allowing unregistered voters to cast ballots.
#15 Many Ohio voters that showed up at the polls on election day were surprised when they were informed that they had already voted.
#16 In fact, there were reports all over the nation of people being unable to vote because records showed that they had already voted.
#17 According to U.S. Representative Allen West, there were numerous “voting irregularities” in St. Lucie County, Florida on election day…
#20 It is being alleged that unions in Nevada have been registering illegal immigrants and pressuring them to vote.
#21 According to townhall.com, there was a systematic effort by the Obama campaign to suppress the military vote because they knew that most military votes would go against Obama…
So what do you think about all of this?
Please feel free to post an article with your thoughts below…
Written By Michael Snyder
Michael has an undergraduate degree in Commerce from the University of Virginia and a law degree from the University of Florida law school. He also has an LLM from the University of Florida law school. Michael has worked for some of the largest law firms in Washington D.C., but now is mostly focused on trying to make a difference in the world.Read more at http://marketdailynews.com/2012/11/13/22-signs-that-voter-fraud-is-wildly-out-of-control-and-the-election-was-a-sham/#HRQpMRAOsqAuOj1T.99
22 Signs That Voter Fraud Is Wildly Out Of Control And The Election Was A Sham
November 13th, 2012
Michael Snyder: After what we have seen this November, how is any American ever supposed to trust the integrity of our elections ever again? There were over 70,000 reports of voting problems on election day, and there are numerous eyewitnesses that claim that they saw voting machines change votes for one candidate to another candidate right in front of their eyes. In several of the swing states there were counties where the number of registered voters exceeded the total voting age population by a very wide margin. How in the world does that happen? Some of the vote totals that were reported in some of the most important swing states were completely and totally absurd, and yet we are just supposed to accept them on blind faith without ever being able to ask any questions. Of course the Romney campaign has already totally given up, so it isn’t as if there is any chance that the results of the presidential election could be overturned anyhow. But if massive election fraud did take place and nobody is held accountable, what kind of message will that send for the future? Will we ever be able to have faith in the integrity of our elections ever again?[Related: Election 2012: Thousands Of Shocking Threats Of Violence By Barack Obama Supporters]
The following are 22 signs that voter fraud is wildly out of control and the election was a sham…#1 According to the Election Protection Coalition, voters across the United States reported more than 70,000 voting problems by 5 PM Eastern time on election day.
#2 There were 59 voting divisions in the city of Philadelphia where Mitt Romney did not receive a single vote. In those voting divisions, the combined vote total was 19,605 for Barack Obama and 0 for Mitt Romney.
#3 The overall voter turnout rate in Philadelphia was only about 60 percent. But in the areas of Philadelphia where Republican poll watchers were illegally removed, the voter turnout rate was over 90% and Obama received over 99% of the vote. Officials in Philadelphia have already ruled out an investigation.
#4 According to WND, one poll watcher in Pennsylvania actually claims that he witnessed voting machine software repeatedly switch votes from Mitt Romney to Barack Obama…
It was in Upper Macungie Township, near Allentown, Pa., where an auditor, Robert Ashcroft, was dispatched by Republicans to monitor the vote on Election Day. He said the software he observed would “change the selection back to default – to Obama.”#5 Somehow Mitt Romney won 55 out of the 67 counties in the state of Pennsylvania and still managed to lose the entire state by a wide margin because of the absurd vote totals that Obama ran up in the urban areas.
He said that happened in about 5 percent to 10 percent of the votes.
He said the changes appeared to have been made by a software program.
Ashcroft said the format for computer programming has a default status, and in this case it appeared to be designating a vote for Obama each time it went to default.
#6 Barack Obama received more than 98 percent of the vote in 10 out of the 50 wards in the city of Chicago.
#7 Prior to the election, voters in the states of Nevada, North Carolina, Texas and Ohio all reported that voting machines were switching their votes for Romney over to Obama.
#8 There were more than 50 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio where Mitt Romney received 2 votes or less.
#9 There were more than 100 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio where Barack Obama received more than 99 times the votes that Mitt Romney did.
#10 Barack Obama also received more than 99% of the vote in a number of very important precincts down in Broward County, Florida.
#11 Wood County, Ohio (which Obama won) has a voting age population of 98,213, but somehow 106,258 voters were registered to vote on election day.
[Related: Economy: Post-Election Firings and Layoffs Surge]
#12 Ten counties in the swing state of Colorado have a voter registration rate of more than 100%.#13 Barack Obama did not win in a single state that absolutely requires a photo I.D. in order to vote.
#14 In Ohio, two election judges were caught allowing unregistered voters to cast ballots.
#15 Many Ohio voters that showed up at the polls on election day were surprised when they were informed that they had already voted.
#16 In fact, there were reports all over the nation of people being unable to vote because records showed that they had already voted.
#17 According to U.S. Representative Allen West, there were numerous “voting irregularities” in St. Lucie County, Florida on election day…
“The thing that spurred our curiosity in our race was the fact that at 1 o’clock in the morning on Election Night, all of a sudden there was a 4,000-vote swing that took me from being ahead to put the lead into my opponent’s hands.”#18 In Wisconsin, there were allegations that Obama voters were actually being bussed in from out of state…
The Democrats stationed a self described “BIG Chicago pro bono attorney” as one of their two observers at this small polling place. He remained at the polling place from 7:00 a.m. until well after 8:p.m. …..A high priced CHICAGO attorney, sitting in a Sheboygan WISCONSIN polling place, observing wards comprised of 1500 voters? …. WHY???#19 Prior to election day, an Obama for America staffer was caught on video trying to help someone register to vote in more than one state.
Why would someone from Chicago be observing in Sheboygan Wisconsin? And WHY at such a small polling place? Finally, isn’t it interesting that this would occur at the VERY polling place in which all of the above described events ALSO occurred? AGAIN WHY WOULD A CHICAGO ATTORNEY BE OBSERVING AN ELECTION POLLING PLACE WITH FEWER THAN 1500 VOTERS IN IT, IN SHEBOYGAN WISCONSIN? Of all the places where there has been suspected voting irregularities, and OUTRIGHT FRAUD throughout the ENTIRE United States, WHY HERE? WHY SHEBOYGAN? WHY THIS SMALL WARD?
This lawyer spent the day running in and out making, and taking calls, which coincidentally then coincided with influxes of groups of individuals by the van and bus loads, coming in to register, AND VOTE, using what appeared to be copied Allient energy bills. These individuals often did not have photo I.D.’s, could not remember their own addresses without looking at the paper, and became easily tripped, confused and annoyed when questioned.
Many of these same individuals, just so happened to be dressed in/wearing CHICAGO BEARS apparel, and whom openly discussed “catching busses back to Chicago” with each other, with poll workers, via their cell phones in the lobby area just outside the polling place, as well as in the parking lot, both before and AFTER registering and voting.
One woman was dressed head to toe in CHICAGO BEARS apparel including perfectly manicured BEARS fake fingernails!
She complained because registering was taking too long and she had to hurry up to catch her bus back to Chicago.
We have photos of these people in vehicles with plates from different states, photos of them leaving the polls, and other irregularities.
#20 It is being alleged that unions in Nevada have been registering illegal immigrants and pressuring them to vote.
#21 According to townhall.com, there was a systematic effort by the Obama campaign to suppress the military vote because they knew that most military votes would go against Obama…
Aiding Obama’s win was a devious suppression of the conservative vote. The conservative-leaning military vote has decreased drastically since 2010 due to the so-called Military Voter Protection Act that was enacted into law the year before. It has made it so difficult for overseas military personnel to obtain absentee ballots that in Virginia and Ohio there has been a 70% decrease in requests for ballots since 2008. In Virginia, almost 30,000 fewer overseas military voters requested ballots than in 2008. In Ohio, more than 20,000 fewer overseas military voters requested ballots. This is significant considering Obama won in both states by a little over 100,000 votes.#22 According to the Naval Enlisted Reserve Association, it appears that thousands of military votes from this election will never be counted at all.
So what do you think about all of this?
[Related: Election Fraud? Barack Obama Won More Than 99 Percent Of The Vote In More Than 100 Ohio Precincts]
Do you still believe that elections in America are fair and honest?Please feel free to post an article with your thoughts below…
Written By Michael SnyderMichael has an undergraduate degree in Commerce from the University of Virginia and a law degree from the University of Florida law school. He also has an LLM from the University of Florida law school. Michael has worked for some of the largest law firms in Washington D.C., but now is mostly focused on trying to make a difference in the world.
THE BIG LIST of vote fraud reports
Barack Obama says he won the 2012 presidential election, Mitt Romney conceded and the Electoral College electors are scheduled to meet on Dec. 17 to cast the votes that officially will choose a name for the presidency.
But what really happened?
Here is the BIG LIST of reports that document voting irregularities and apparent fraud during the 2012 presidential tabulation:
But what really happened?
Chicago elections worker Steve Pickrum told WND as an equipment manager for the elections system, he was called when a voting machine malfunctioned. “On early voting when I did work on the floor when voters needed help using the equipment, I was able to see the preference of the voter, and every time that I saw [a] voter voted for Romney a ‘voter save failure’ message came up on the screen,’” he reported. Then when he went on election day to vote himself, he picked Romney and experienced the same error message. He reported he never experienced the error message when the voter was choosing Barack Obama.
Another poll worker, this one assigned at the University of Michigan, reported to WND a list of irregularities, including that the precinct captain told her at one point, “You go sit down, you are bothering me,” when she was trying to observe the proceedings. “I was only standing there and looking at voter documents,” she told WND. “It was clear that what bothered him was my very presence.” She said a short time later a young man arrived and identified himself as a Democrat poll challenger. “The first time he said anything was to object to my challenge of a voter. He tried to anger the voter by telling her ‘She does not believe you are who you say you are.’ He was trying to create a scene. It then happened again and I told him ‘You are not here to challenge me!’ His reply was a very loud ‘Yes I am! You are a Republican and you are here to prevent people from voting. You are holding up the line and creating obstructions,’” she reported. She told WND in fact no one waited more than about 15 minutes to vote the entire day, and there were no obstructions.
Here’s the blueprint Obama used to steal the 2012 election.And in Florida, the Sun Sentinel reported that election workers a week after the election said they found 963 unaccounted-for ballots – in a warehouse. “How can you lose them? This is terrible,” candidate Chickie Brandimarte told officials. Election supervisor Brenda Snipes, however, said it’s routine for various vote totals to be adjusted up until the Nov. 18 final certification.
Also in Florida, residents began demanding changes in the electoral system that handed voters chaos, frustration and delays at polling stations. The Florida League of Women Voters and other groups are demanding from Gov. Rick Scott a plan to draft reforms for the state’s elections.
A poll watcher told WND up to 10 percent of the ballots cast at a polling station in Pennsylvania reverted to a default, which gave Barack Obama a vote no matter who the voter had selected. The incident took place in the state where officials claimed Obama got a total of 19,605 votes in 59 voting divisions to zero for Mitt Romney and not far from the 100 precincts in Ohio where Obama got 99 percent of the vote, a feat not even achieved by third-world dictators. It was in Upper Macungie Township, near Allentown, Pa., where an auditor, Robert Ashcroft, was dispatched by Republicans to monitor the vote on Election Day. He said the software he observed would “change the selection back to default – to Obama.”
Stand up to fight against voter fraud right now!Fox News reported that voters in Nevada, North Carolina, Texas and Ohio also said they had pushed a button on a touch-screen voting machine for Romney, but the machines recorded their vote for Obama.
At the White House website, a report in the Examiner explains, there was posted a petition seeking a recount of the race. “In one county alone in Ohio, which was a battleground state, President Obama received 106,258 votes … but there were only 98,213 eligible voters. It’s not humanly possible to get 108 percent of the vote,” the petition claims.
Fox News reported that two election judges were replaced after illegally allowing unregistered voters to cast ballots.
The Columbus Dispatch estimated that more than 20 percent of registered Ohio voters aren’t eligible. “In two counties, the number of registered voters actually exceeds the voting-age population,” the report said. And, it said, in 31 other counties, registrations are above 90 percent of the population, “a rate regarded as unrealistic by most voting experts.”
Fox News also documented how Senate candidate Wendy Long, an attorney who was a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, recounted her voting experience. “A poll worker who was at the scanner studied my private ballot and proceeded to tell me that it was rejected because I did not ‘fill in every space.’ She then proceeded to indicate that I should mark the Democratic line all the way down.”
The Market Daily News reported on those 100 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, that on election day gave Romney zero votes, and Obama got 99 percent. “In more than 50 different precincts, Romney received two votes or less,” the report said. “One would think that such improbable results would get the attention of somebody out there.”
According to Philly.com, 59 voting divisions in Philadelphia produced a “head-spinning figure,” not one vote for Romney. “The unanimous support for Obama in these Philadelphia neighborhoods – clustered in almost exclusively black sections of West and North Philadelphia – fertilizes fears of fraud, despite little hard evidence,” the newspaper said.
On YouTube was the testimony of a computer programmer, telling the Ohio Legislature that he was able to write a program that would rig elections by flipping the total vote from the real winner to a pre-selected candidate.
The Washington Times reported that officials in Florida banned observers from seeing the absentee ballots being opened and “there was no way to know whether the absentee ballots that were produced were the same ones that were opened, or if all the ballots were produced.”
Human Events claimed Ohio voters who are native to Somalia were being given a slate card saying, “Vote Brown all the way down” – an apparent reference to the Democratic senator.
WND’s newest forum is your opportunity to report voter fraudThe Washington Times reported its suspicions of voter fraud in Pennsylvania, including that “in Philadelphia, the [New] Black Panthers are currently standing outside polling booths, intimidating voters just like they did in 2008.” It said, too, that 70 Republican polling inspectors were blocked from access.
U.S. now only 2 states away from rewriting Constitution
A public policy organization has issued an urgent alert stating affirmative votes are needed from only two more states before a Constitutional Convention could be assembled in which “today’s corrupt politicians and judges” could formally change the U.S. Constitution’s “‘problematic’ provisions to reflect the philosophical and social mores of our contemporary society.”
“Don’t for one second doubt that delegates to a Con Con wouldn’t revise the First Amendment into a government-controlled privilege, replace the 2nd Amendment with a ‘collective’ right to self-defense, and abolish the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments, and the rest of the Bill of Rights,” said the warning from the American Policy Center.
“Additions could include the non-existent separation of church and state, the ‘right’ to abortion and euthanasia, and much, much more,” the group said.
The warning comes at a time when Barack Obama, who is to be voted the next president by the Electoral College Monday, has expressed his belief the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted through the lens of current events.
Tom DeWeese, who runs the center and its education and grass-roots work, told WND the possibilities stunned him when he discovered lawmakers in Ohio are considering a call for a Constitutional Convention. He explained that 32 other states already have taken that vote, and only one more would be needed to require Congress to name convention delegates who then would have more power than Congress itself.
“The U.S. Constitution places no restriction on the purposes for which the states can call for a convention,” the alert said. “If Ohio votes to call a Con Con, for whatever purpose, the United States will be only one state away from total destruction. And it’s a safe bet that those who hate this nation, and all She stands for, are waiting to pounce upon this opportunity to re-write our Constitution.”
DeWeese told WND that a handful of quickly responding citizens appeared at the Ohio Legislature yesterday for the meeting at which the convention resolution was supposed to be handled.
State officials suddenly decided to delay action, he said, giving those concerned by the possibilities of such a convention a little time to breathe.
According to a Fox News report, Obama has stated repeatedly his desire for empathetic judges who “understand” the plight of minorities.
In a 2007 speech to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, he said, “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”
Obama also committed himself to respecting the Constitution but said the founding document must be interpreted in the context of current affairs and events.
Read how today’s America already has rejected the Constitution, and what you can do about it.
Melody Barnes, a senior domestic policy adviser to the Obama campaign, said in the Fox News report, “His view is that our society isn’t static and the law isn’t static as well. That the Constitution is a living and breathing document and that the law and the justices who interpret it have to understand that.”
Obama has criticized Justice Clarence Thomas, regarded as a conservative member of the court, as not a strong jurist or legal thinker. And Obama voted against both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, two appointees of President Bush who vote with Thomas on many issues.
Further, WND also reported Obama believes the Constitution is flawed, because it fails to address wealth redistribution, and he says the Supreme Court should have intervened years ago to accomplish that.
Obama said in a 2001 radio interview the Constitution is flawed in that it does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth.
Obama told Chicago’s public station WBEZ-FM that “redistributive change” is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.
The Warren court, he said, failed to “break free from the essential constraints” in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.
In the 2001 interview, Obama said:
DeWeese said the Constitutional Convention effort was begun in the 1980s by those who wanted to rein in government with an amendment requiring a balanced budget for the federal agencies.
“Certainly all loyal Americans want government constrained by a balanced budget,” the alert said. “But calling a Con Con risks a revolutionary change in our form of government. The ultimate outcome will likely be a new constitution, one that would possibly eliminate the Article 1 restriction to the coinage of real money or even eliminate gun or property rights.”
He noted that when the last Constitutional Convention met in 1787, the original goal was to amend the Articles of Confederation. Instead, delegates simply threw them out and wrote a new Constitution.
“We were blessed in 1787; the Con Con delegates were the leaders of a freedom movement that had just cleansed this land of tyranny,” the warning said. “Today’s corrupt politicians and judges would like nothing better than the ability to legally ignore the Constitution – to modify its “problematic” provisions to reflect the philosophical and socials mores of our contemporary society.”
DeWeese then listed some of the states whose legislatures already have issued a call: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.
“You may have heard that some of those 32 states have voted to rescind their calls. This is true,” the warning continued. “However, under Article V of the Constitution, Congress must call a Constitutional Convention whenever two-thirds (or 34) of the states apply. The Constitution makes no provision for rescission.”
The warning also suggested that the belief that a Constitution Convention could be directed in its purpose is misplaced.
“In truth no restrictive language from any state can legally limit the scope or outcome of a Convention! Once a Convention is called, Congress determines how the delegates to the Convention are chosen. Once chosen, those Convention delegates possess more power than the U.S. Congress itself,” the warning said.
“We have not had a Constitutional Convention since 1787. That Convention was called to make small changes in the Articles of Confederation. As a point of fact, several states first passed resolutions requiring their delegates discuss amendments to the Articles ONLY, forbidding even discussion of foundational changes. However, following the delegates’ first agreement that their meetings be in secret, their second act was to agree to debate those state restrictions and to declare the Articles of Confederation NULL AND VOID! They also changed the ratification process, reducing the required states’ approval from 100 percent to 75 percent. There is no reason to believe a contemporary Con Con wouldn’t further ‘modify’ Article V restrictions to suit its purpose,” the center warning said.
The website Principled Policy opined it is true that any new document would have to be submitted to a ratification process.
“However fighting a new Constitution would be a long, hard, ugly and expensive battle which is guaranteed to leave the nation split along ideological lines. It is not difficult to envision civil unrest, riots or even civil war as a result of any re-writing of the current Constitution,” the site said.
American Policy cited a statement from former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger that said, “There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda.”
“This is a horrible time to try such a crazy scheme,” the policy center said. “The majority of U.S. voters just elected a dedicated leftist as president. … Our uniquely and purely American concept of individual rights, endowed by our Creator, would be quickly set aside as an anachronistic relic of a bygone era; replaced by new ‘collective’ rights, awarded and enforced by government for the ‘common good.’
“And state No. 34 is likely sitting silently in the wings, ready to act with lightning speed, sealing the fate of our once great nation before we can prevent it,” the center said.
A Constitutional Convention would be, DeWeese told WND, “our worst nightmare in an age when you’ve got people who believe the Constitution is an antiquated document, we need to have everything from controls on guns … all of these U.N. treaties … and controls on how we raise our children.”
“When you take the document that is in their way, put it on the table and say how would you like to change it,” he said.
American Policy Center suggested several courses of action for people who are concerned, including the suggestion that Ohio lawmakers be contacted.
WND also has reported an associate at a Chicago law firm whose partner served on a finance committee for Obama has advocated simply abandoning the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural-born” citizen.
The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy is listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis. A partner in the same firm, Bruce I. Ettelson, cites his membership on the finance committees for both Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin on the corporate website.
The article by Herlihy is available online under law review articles from Kent University.
The issue of Obama’s own eligibility is the subject of nearly two dozen court cases in recent weeks, including at least two that have gone to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Herlihy’s published paper reveals that the requirement likely was considered in a negative light by organizations linked to Obama in the months before he announced in 2007 his candidacy for the presidency.
“The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the ‘stupidest provision’ in the Constitution, ‘undecidedly un-American,’ ‘blatantly discriminatory,’ and the ‘Constitution’s worst provision,’” Herlihy begins in her introduction to the paper titled, “Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle.
“Don’t for one second doubt that delegates to a Con Con wouldn’t revise the First Amendment into a government-controlled privilege, replace the 2nd Amendment with a ‘collective’ right to self-defense, and abolish the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments, and the rest of the Bill of Rights,” said the warning from the American Policy Center.
The warning comes at a time when Barack Obama, who is to be voted the next president by the Electoral College Monday, has expressed his belief the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted through the lens of current events.
Tom DeWeese, who runs the center and its education and grass-roots work, told WND the possibilities stunned him when he discovered lawmakers in Ohio are considering a call for a Constitutional Convention. He explained that 32 other states already have taken that vote, and only one more would be needed to require Congress to name convention delegates who then would have more power than Congress itself.
“The U.S. Constitution places no restriction on the purposes for which the states can call for a convention,” the alert said. “If Ohio votes to call a Con Con, for whatever purpose, the United States will be only one state away from total destruction. And it’s a safe bet that those who hate this nation, and all She stands for, are waiting to pounce upon this opportunity to re-write our Constitution.”
DeWeese told WND that a handful of quickly responding citizens appeared at the Ohio Legislature yesterday for the meeting at which the convention resolution was supposed to be handled.
State officials suddenly decided to delay action, he said, giving those concerned by the possibilities of such a convention a little time to breathe.
According to a Fox News report, Obama has stated repeatedly his desire for empathetic judges who “understand” the plight of minorities.
 The final vote from the 1787 Constitutional Convention |
Obama also committed himself to respecting the Constitution but said the founding document must be interpreted in the context of current affairs and events.
Read how today’s America already has rejected the Constitution, and what you can do about it.
Melody Barnes, a senior domestic policy adviser to the Obama campaign, said in the Fox News report, “His view is that our society isn’t static and the law isn’t static as well. That the Constitution is a living and breathing document and that the law and the justices who interpret it have to understand that.”
Obama has criticized Justice Clarence Thomas, regarded as a conservative member of the court, as not a strong jurist or legal thinker. And Obama voted against both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, two appointees of President Bush who vote with Thomas on many issues.
Further, WND also reported Obama believes the Constitution is flawed, because it fails to address wealth redistribution, and he says the Supreme Court should have intervened years ago to accomplish that.
Obama said in a 2001 radio interview the Constitution is flawed in that it does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth.
Obama told Chicago’s public station WBEZ-FM that “redistributive change” is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.
The Warren court, he said, failed to “break free from the essential constraints” in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.
In the 2001 interview, Obama said:
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OKThe video is available here:
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.
And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.
DeWeese said the Constitutional Convention effort was begun in the 1980s by those who wanted to rein in government with an amendment requiring a balanced budget for the federal agencies.
“Certainly all loyal Americans want government constrained by a balanced budget,” the alert said. “But calling a Con Con risks a revolutionary change in our form of government. The ultimate outcome will likely be a new constitution, one that would possibly eliminate the Article 1 restriction to the coinage of real money or even eliminate gun or property rights.”
He noted that when the last Constitutional Convention met in 1787, the original goal was to amend the Articles of Confederation. Instead, delegates simply threw them out and wrote a new Constitution.
“We were blessed in 1787; the Con Con delegates were the leaders of a freedom movement that had just cleansed this land of tyranny,” the warning said. “Today’s corrupt politicians and judges would like nothing better than the ability to legally ignore the Constitution – to modify its “problematic” provisions to reflect the philosophical and socials mores of our contemporary society.”
DeWeese then listed some of the states whose legislatures already have issued a call: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.
“You may have heard that some of those 32 states have voted to rescind their calls. This is true,” the warning continued. “However, under Article V of the Constitution, Congress must call a Constitutional Convention whenever two-thirds (or 34) of the states apply. The Constitution makes no provision for rescission.”
The warning also suggested that the belief that a Constitution Convention could be directed in its purpose is misplaced.
“In truth no restrictive language from any state can legally limit the scope or outcome of a Convention! Once a Convention is called, Congress determines how the delegates to the Convention are chosen. Once chosen, those Convention delegates possess more power than the U.S. Congress itself,” the warning said.
“We have not had a Constitutional Convention since 1787. That Convention was called to make small changes in the Articles of Confederation. As a point of fact, several states first passed resolutions requiring their delegates discuss amendments to the Articles ONLY, forbidding even discussion of foundational changes. However, following the delegates’ first agreement that their meetings be in secret, their second act was to agree to debate those state restrictions and to declare the Articles of Confederation NULL AND VOID! They also changed the ratification process, reducing the required states’ approval from 100 percent to 75 percent. There is no reason to believe a contemporary Con Con wouldn’t further ‘modify’ Article V restrictions to suit its purpose,” the center warning said.
The website Principled Policy opined it is true that any new document would have to be submitted to a ratification process.
“However fighting a new Constitution would be a long, hard, ugly and expensive battle which is guaranteed to leave the nation split along ideological lines. It is not difficult to envision civil unrest, riots or even civil war as a result of any re-writing of the current Constitution,” the site said.
American Policy cited a statement from former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger that said, “There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda.”
“This is a horrible time to try such a crazy scheme,” the policy center said. “The majority of U.S. voters just elected a dedicated leftist as president. … Our uniquely and purely American concept of individual rights, endowed by our Creator, would be quickly set aside as an anachronistic relic of a bygone era; replaced by new ‘collective’ rights, awarded and enforced by government for the ‘common good.’
“And state No. 34 is likely sitting silently in the wings, ready to act with lightning speed, sealing the fate of our once great nation before we can prevent it,” the center said.
A Constitutional Convention would be, DeWeese told WND, “our worst nightmare in an age when you’ve got people who believe the Constitution is an antiquated document, we need to have everything from controls on guns … all of these U.N. treaties … and controls on how we raise our children.”
“When you take the document that is in their way, put it on the table and say how would you like to change it,” he said.
American Policy Center suggested several courses of action for people who are concerned, including the suggestion that Ohio lawmakers be contacted.
WND also has reported an associate at a Chicago law firm whose partner served on a finance committee for Obama has advocated simply abandoning the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural-born” citizen.
The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy is listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis. A partner in the same firm, Bruce I. Ettelson, cites his membership on the finance committees for both Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin on the corporate website.
The article by Herlihy is available online under law review articles from Kent University.
The issue of Obama’s own eligibility is the subject of nearly two dozen court cases in recent weeks, including at least two that have gone to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Herlihy’s published paper reveals that the requirement likely was considered in a negative light by organizations linked to Obama in the months before he announced in 2007 his candidacy for the presidency.
“The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the ‘stupidest provision’ in the Constitution, ‘undecidedly un-American,’ ‘blatantly discriminatory,’ and the ‘Constitution’s worst provision,’” Herlihy begins in her introduction to the paper titled, “Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle.
Obama win is Constitution’s loss
On Sept. 12, 2001, President George W. Bush assured us: “We will not allow this enemy to win the war by changing our way of life or restricting our freedoms.”
The enemy has certainly tried, but it was President Bush, following the advice of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, who began the extensive attack on our individual liberties through the Patriot Act, which passed on Oct. 26, 2001.
Then, President Barack Obama went far beyond his predecessor’s administration to become the most destructive uprooter of our Constitution in our nation’s history.
Growing up as a student at Boston Latin School, one of whose alumni was Samuel Adams, a firebrand of our American Revolution, I read American history with excitement. I learned how we always overcame grimly looming threats to our self-governing republic to become a beacon to the world.
But never did I even imagine that an American president, without insuring due process in a court of law, would – as Obama does – use a kill list to target suspected terrorists for assassination. So far this list has also included three American citizens.
Obama has taken advantage of ever-advancing digital technology, using bottomless databases that keep track of those Americans he considers persons of subversive interest. During the presidential debates, did you hear anything about our vanishing privacy?
The secrecy with which Obama discards the Constitution to rule over us is evident in his dictatorial use of the “state secrets” privilege, which actually prevents judges from even hearing cases brought by citizens who claim their fundamental constitutional rights have been expunged by the president’s censors.
I now share with you, fellow American citizens, this chilling description of the essence of four more years of our maximum leader. In a recent op-ed for the Washington Post, Kurt Volker shows what that portion of the electorate who cared enough to vote gave us and the rest of the world. This is what America has now come to stand for:
“What do we want to be as a nation? A country with a permanent kill list? A country where people go to the office, launch a few kill shots (from pilotless drones) and get home in time for dinner?
“A country that instructs workers in high-tech operations centers to kill human beings on the far side of the planet because some government agency determined that those individuals are terrorists?” (“What the U.S. risks by relying on drones,” Kurt Volker, The Washington Post, Oct. 26).
A country also where its president makes the final choice for his faceless killers to rub out their targets.
I was not surprised to learn from a recent Washington Times column by Ilana Freedman that “the latest (dictator) to publicly announce his support for the commander-in-chief’s re-election bid was Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, who … assured he’d vote for Obama if he were from the United States. …
“Earlier in the year the government-official daughter of Cuban military dictator Raul Castro proclaimed her country’s support for Obama during a visit to the U.S. ‘I believe that Obama needs another opportunity and he needs greater support to move forward with his projects and with his ideas, which I believe come from the bottom of his heart’” (“Chavez, Castro, Putin: Four more years!” Ilana Freedman, times247.com, Oct. 2).
In that dictatorship, Raul’s daughter surely spoke with permission from her father and uncle. It takes one to know one.
Freedman’s news story includes Russia’s Vladimir Putin as a member of the professed group “Dictators for Obama.” But I have no direct evidence of that. I’ll keep you abreast of any other dictators joining the celebratory chorus.
In any case, Obama is once more exultantly justifying anything he chooses to do from now on, because “We won!”
The fateful questions for the future of this nation are why did he win, and will his re-election show the victorious way for future presidents to come?
Many Americans’ choice to discard the Declaration of Independence reveals an alarming ignorance of their history, including why their country is – or is supposed to be – unique among all other nations in the world.
The depth of this ignorance explains why throughout the long, fiercely divisive presidential and congressional campaigns, there were hardly any references to Obama’s persistent contempt for the Constitution. This was the case among loyal Obama Democrats, of course, but also among Republicans and independents.
What makes us Americans was not an issue!
How grotesque it was for Obama to say in September – as he presented his beliefs for maintaining the principles of America’s rule of law while strengthening national security – that in going after American citizens involved with al-Qaida: “They are subject to the protections of the Constitution and due process” (“Death from afar,” The Economist, Nov. 3).
Had I been there looking at him, how could I not have burst out laughing?
How can we specifically get our country back? Whether you’re elderly or not, keep in mind that Obamacare could soon be coming after you full force – as it decides whether it costs his government too much to keep you alive!
In January 2003, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke about the balance between liberty and security. “The security side is going to outweigh the other” – unless “people come forward and say we are proud to be living in a land that has been more free, and we want to keep it that way” (my book, “The War on the Bill of Rights and the Gathering Resistance,” Seven Stories Press, 2003).
Next week: How many of us are ready to rebel against this new King George III?
The enemy has certainly tried, but it was President Bush, following the advice of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, who began the extensive attack on our individual liberties through the Patriot Act, which passed on Oct. 26, 2001.
Growing up as a student at Boston Latin School, one of whose alumni was Samuel Adams, a firebrand of our American Revolution, I read American history with excitement. I learned how we always overcame grimly looming threats to our self-governing republic to become a beacon to the world.
But never did I even imagine that an American president, without insuring due process in a court of law, would – as Obama does – use a kill list to target suspected terrorists for assassination. So far this list has also included three American citizens.
Obama has taken advantage of ever-advancing digital technology, using bottomless databases that keep track of those Americans he considers persons of subversive interest. During the presidential debates, did you hear anything about our vanishing privacy?
The secrecy with which Obama discards the Constitution to rule over us is evident in his dictatorial use of the “state secrets” privilege, which actually prevents judges from even hearing cases brought by citizens who claim their fundamental constitutional rights have been expunged by the president’s censors.
I now share with you, fellow American citizens, this chilling description of the essence of four more years of our maximum leader. In a recent op-ed for the Washington Post, Kurt Volker shows what that portion of the electorate who cared enough to vote gave us and the rest of the world. This is what America has now come to stand for:
“What do we want to be as a nation? A country with a permanent kill list? A country where people go to the office, launch a few kill shots (from pilotless drones) and get home in time for dinner?
“A country that instructs workers in high-tech operations centers to kill human beings on the far side of the planet because some government agency determined that those individuals are terrorists?” (“What the U.S. risks by relying on drones,” Kurt Volker, The Washington Post, Oct. 26).
A country also where its president makes the final choice for his faceless killers to rub out their targets.
I was not surprised to learn from a recent Washington Times column by Ilana Freedman that “the latest (dictator) to publicly announce his support for the commander-in-chief’s re-election bid was Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, who … assured he’d vote for Obama if he were from the United States. …
“Earlier in the year the government-official daughter of Cuban military dictator Raul Castro proclaimed her country’s support for Obama during a visit to the U.S. ‘I believe that Obama needs another opportunity and he needs greater support to move forward with his projects and with his ideas, which I believe come from the bottom of his heart’” (“Chavez, Castro, Putin: Four more years!” Ilana Freedman, times247.com, Oct. 2).
In that dictatorship, Raul’s daughter surely spoke with permission from her father and uncle. It takes one to know one.
Freedman’s news story includes Russia’s Vladimir Putin as a member of the professed group “Dictators for Obama.” But I have no direct evidence of that. I’ll keep you abreast of any other dictators joining the celebratory chorus.
In any case, Obama is once more exultantly justifying anything he chooses to do from now on, because “We won!”
The fateful questions for the future of this nation are why did he win, and will his re-election show the victorious way for future presidents to come?
Many Americans’ choice to discard the Declaration of Independence reveals an alarming ignorance of their history, including why their country is – or is supposed to be – unique among all other nations in the world.
The depth of this ignorance explains why throughout the long, fiercely divisive presidential and congressional campaigns, there were hardly any references to Obama’s persistent contempt for the Constitution. This was the case among loyal Obama Democrats, of course, but also among Republicans and independents.
What makes us Americans was not an issue!
How grotesque it was for Obama to say in September – as he presented his beliefs for maintaining the principles of America’s rule of law while strengthening national security – that in going after American citizens involved with al-Qaida: “They are subject to the protections of the Constitution and due process” (“Death from afar,” The Economist, Nov. 3).
Had I been there looking at him, how could I not have burst out laughing?
How can we specifically get our country back? Whether you’re elderly or not, keep in mind that Obamacare could soon be coming after you full force – as it decides whether it costs his government too much to keep you alive!
In January 2003, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke about the balance between liberty and security. “The security side is going to outweigh the other” – unless “people come forward and say we are proud to be living in a land that has been more free, and we want to keep it that way” (my book, “The War on the Bill of Rights and the Gathering Resistance,” Seven Stories Press, 2003).
Next week: How many of us are ready to rebel against this new King George III?
Americans Choose Socialism :: Jan Morgan Media
Americans Choose Socialism :: Jan Morgan Media
While there may be legitimate isolated incidents of voter fraud during the presidential campaign, I doubt it amounts to more than 3 million votes.
The fact is, the majority of Americans chose bigger government, more regulation, more entitlements, higher taxes, less freedom, less liberty, less sovereignty, and less opportunity.
The allure of socialism is extremely attractive and very addictive. And although history points to it’s end-of-the-road devastating consequences – because the current generation of Americans are by and large devoid of historical context – it looks, sounds, and feels pretty damn good.
And why shouldn’t it?
Besides the occasional coverage of riots and uprisings in countries like Greece and Spain, as far as younger Americans are concerned, Europeans look pretty content.
Sure, young Americans may hear the usual talking points:
> Eventually running out of other peoples money
> The devastating consequences
> Forced austerity measures
> Government intrusion
> Lack of private ownership
> High taxes
> Yada, yada, yada . . .
But that’s not what they’re witnessing.
In fact, because of social media sites and the internet, more and more young Americans are interacting with and even forging genuine friendships with young Europeans who, by and large, are pretty happy.
Hell, why wouldn’t they be?
Daily siestas, upwards of 12 weeks a year vacation, sick days, universal healthcare, national holidays, public pot smoking, legal prostitution, openly gay soirees, and government paid retirement.
And if you run out of money or find your ass in a sling, you just call on America to bail your butt out.
How in the hell is democracy, free market capitalism, individual responsibility, and hard work supposed to compete with that?
It can’t.
And until Americans personally experience the devastating consequences of statism and socialism, it will continue to grow and influence more and more of the electorate . . .
With no end in sight.
In fact, I venture to say that within 20 years, America will have rejected free markets, free enterprise, and capitalism in favor of and in full agreement with socialist principles.
Why? Because most Americans with any historical context and heartfelt patriotic pride and appreciation for what this country used to stand for will be dead of old age.
But what will still be here?
The only institution that can guarantee the implementation of socialism in the United States . . . The Federal Reserve.
That is, until the rest of the world calls in their markers.
How long can the charade go on?
Probably a lot longer than anyone can predict.
Sixteen trillion dollars in debt would have been unthinkable, not to mention, unconscionable only ten years ago. Now it’s just a drop in the bucket? Americans have become immune and unaffected by it.
And why not?
There have been no repercussions – no blowback as a result of all the oniomania.
If there were ever a valid retort for the old cliche’ “Money doesn’t grow on trees,” it’s . . .
“No Daddy, but it grows on printing presses.”
We’ve been on the road to perdition for a lot longer than most Americans even know. Definitely since Nixon removed the dollar from the gold standard, and arguably since FDR’s “New Deal” in 1933. Some would even harken it to the Woodrow Wilson era twenty years before that.
Regardless of its genesis, it’s not a matter of “if” but “when” the Day of Reckoning will arrive.
Far be it for me to prognosticate when that time will come, but I venture to say that’s it’s much longer into the future than any economist can predict.
Debt and deficits aren’t the concern. If the Fed runs out of ink or paper – that’s when it will be time to worry.
So what if a loaf of bread may cost a hundred bucks? We don’t need the carbs anyway
Kevin A. Lehmann
While there may be legitimate isolated incidents of voter fraud during the presidential campaign, I doubt it amounts to more than 3 million votes.
The fact is, the majority of Americans chose bigger government, more regulation, more entitlements, higher taxes, less freedom, less liberty, less sovereignty, and less opportunity.
The allure of socialism is extremely attractive and very addictive. And although history points to it’s end-of-the-road devastating consequences – because the current generation of Americans are by and large devoid of historical context – it looks, sounds, and feels pretty damn good.
And why shouldn’t it?
Besides the occasional coverage of riots and uprisings in countries like Greece and Spain, as far as younger Americans are concerned, Europeans look pretty content.
Sure, young Americans may hear the usual talking points:
> Eventually running out of other peoples money
> The devastating consequences
> Forced austerity measures
> Government intrusion
> Lack of private ownership
> High taxes
> Yada, yada, yada . . .
But that’s not what they’re witnessing.
In fact, because of social media sites and the internet, more and more young Americans are interacting with and even forging genuine friendships with young Europeans who, by and large, are pretty happy.
Hell, why wouldn’t they be?
Daily siestas, upwards of 12 weeks a year vacation, sick days, universal healthcare, national holidays, public pot smoking, legal prostitution, openly gay soirees, and government paid retirement.
And if you run out of money or find your ass in a sling, you just call on America to bail your butt out.
How in the hell is democracy, free market capitalism, individual responsibility, and hard work supposed to compete with that?
It can’t.
And until Americans personally experience the devastating consequences of statism and socialism, it will continue to grow and influence more and more of the electorate . . .
With no end in sight.
In fact, I venture to say that within 20 years, America will have rejected free markets, free enterprise, and capitalism in favor of and in full agreement with socialist principles.
Why? Because most Americans with any historical context and heartfelt patriotic pride and appreciation for what this country used to stand for will be dead of old age.
But what will still be here?
The only institution that can guarantee the implementation of socialism in the United States . . . The Federal Reserve.
That is, until the rest of the world calls in their markers.
How long can the charade go on?
Probably a lot longer than anyone can predict.
Sixteen trillion dollars in debt would have been unthinkable, not to mention, unconscionable only ten years ago. Now it’s just a drop in the bucket? Americans have become immune and unaffected by it.
And why not?
There have been no repercussions – no blowback as a result of all the oniomania.
If there were ever a valid retort for the old cliche’ “Money doesn’t grow on trees,” it’s . . .
“No Daddy, but it grows on printing presses.”
We’ve been on the road to perdition for a lot longer than most Americans even know. Definitely since Nixon removed the dollar from the gold standard, and arguably since FDR’s “New Deal” in 1933. Some would even harken it to the Woodrow Wilson era twenty years before that.
Regardless of its genesis, it’s not a matter of “if” but “when” the Day of Reckoning will arrive.
Far be it for me to prognosticate when that time will come, but I venture to say that’s it’s much longer into the future than any economist can predict.
Debt and deficits aren’t the concern. If the Fed runs out of ink or paper – that’s when it will be time to worry.
So what if a loaf of bread may cost a hundred bucks? We don’t need the carbs anyway
Kevin A. Lehmann
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)