November 10, 2012
You Tube
Joel Skousen sits down with Alex Jones and discusses strategies on how to prepare for and survive major disasters. Joel Skousen is a world renowned expert in designing secure homes, geo-political analysis, and strategic relocation. Preparing food, water, arms, medical supplies, and shelter may not be a good enough plan. Large population centers are the biggest threat to survival after any major disaster. Joel Skousen explains his strategy for survival, which includes acquiring all of the essentials, preparing in a safe location and methods on how to avoid a dangerous hungry population and safely arrive at your secure location.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Investigation Launched after Classified Info on Benghazi Attack Was Given to Daily Beast Reporter (Video)
November 10, 2012
by Jim Hoft
(The Gateway Pundit) -
Leak Inquiry Launched After Daily Beast Reporter Was Given Classified Info on Benghazi Attack -
A leak inquiry has been launched after Daily Beast reporter Leslie Gelb was given classified information on the Benghazi attack.
Catherine Herridge at FOX News reported:
On Monday Rep. Peter King (R-NY) called on President Obama to identify the White House staff members who may have unlawfully disclosed intelligence on the Benghazi attack to journalist Leslie Gelb.
Today, Rep. Peter T. King (R-NY), Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, called on President Obama to identify White House staff members who may have unlawfully disclosed intelligence on the Benghazi attack to journalist Leslie Gelb. Last month Dr. Gelb claimed to have received a White House intelligence briefing on the attack.
But today Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Central Intelligence Agency Director David Petraeus denied that Dr. Gelb received any such briefing from their agencies, and announced a preliminary inquiry into this possibly criminal disclosure of classified information.
In response to today’s letter, Chairman King said: “I welcome Directors Clapper and Petraeus’ initiation of an inquiry into yet another Obama Administration leak of sensitive national security information to the media. If the Intelligence Community did not brief Leslie Gelb on classified information about the Benghazi attack, then who did? I call upon the White House to immediately identify any staff members who may have met with Dr. Gelb since September 11, 2012.”
On October 8th, Dr. Gelb wrote in The Daily Beast that he received a White House intelligence briefing on the September 11, 2012 attack on the United States Consulate in Benghazi. Dr. Gelb stated he received the same intelligence briefing on the subject as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, which was itself derived from the President’s Daily Brief. Dr. Gelb claimed that the initial “daily intel reports” reviewed by himself, Ambassador Rice and President Obama confirmed “that the Benghazi mob formed more or less on its own, mainly in reaction to the American video cartooning sacred Muslim figures.”
by Jim Hoft
(The Gateway Pundit) -
Leak Inquiry Launched After Daily Beast Reporter Was Given Classified Info on Benghazi Attack -
A leak inquiry has been launched after Daily Beast reporter Leslie Gelb was given classified information on the Benghazi attack.
Catherine Herridge at FOX News reported:
On Monday Rep. Peter King (R-NY) called on President Obama to identify the White House staff members who may have unlawfully disclosed intelligence on the Benghazi attack to journalist Leslie Gelb.
Today, Rep. Peter T. King (R-NY), Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, called on President Obama to identify White House staff members who may have unlawfully disclosed intelligence on the Benghazi attack to journalist Leslie Gelb. Last month Dr. Gelb claimed to have received a White House intelligence briefing on the attack.
But today Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Central Intelligence Agency Director David Petraeus denied that Dr. Gelb received any such briefing from their agencies, and announced a preliminary inquiry into this possibly criminal disclosure of classified information.
In response to today’s letter, Chairman King said: “I welcome Directors Clapper and Petraeus’ initiation of an inquiry into yet another Obama Administration leak of sensitive national security information to the media. If the Intelligence Community did not brief Leslie Gelb on classified information about the Benghazi attack, then who did? I call upon the White House to immediately identify any staff members who may have met with Dr. Gelb since September 11, 2012.”
On October 8th, Dr. Gelb wrote in The Daily Beast that he received a White House intelligence briefing on the September 11, 2012 attack on the United States Consulate in Benghazi. Dr. Gelb stated he received the same intelligence briefing on the subject as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, which was itself derived from the President’s Daily Brief. Dr. Gelb claimed that the initial “daily intel reports” reviewed by himself, Ambassador Rice and President Obama confirmed “that the Benghazi mob formed more or less on its own, mainly in reaction to the American video cartooning sacred Muslim figures.”
Voter Fraud Expert: Romney Votes Not Counted in Key States
November 10, 2012
Florida and Ohio called for Obama before substantial number of ballots checked
Vote fraud expert Bev Harris told the Alex Jones Show that a substantial number of votes for Mitt Romney in the key battleground states of Florida and Ohio, both of which went to Obama, were not even counted before the result was announced.
Harris, the founder of non-partisan elections watchdog Black Box Voting Inc., is a well known vote fraud expert whose work has been featured in the New York Times, Washington Post, Time Magazine, CNN, ABC, MSNBC, CBS, Fox News, and NBC.
Harris said that a number of problems with voting in the days after the election came “flooding in” from across the country. As we previously highlighted, reports of electronic voting machine irregularities were widespread almost as soon as voting began on Tuesday.
Harris pointed to the actions of Karl Rove, who confronted Fox News for calling Ohio for Obama when only a mere fraction of the votes had been counted and the two candidates were separated by just 100,000 votes.
Rove attempted to explain to Fox News anchors that there were far too many outstanding votes left to be able to call Ohio for Obama, at least half a million and many in Romney strongholds, but his concerns were instantly dismissed.
“Based not on actual votes, but on projections from a single private entity, the National Election Pool (NEP), we were all told what the election results were going to be. When Rove pulled out his notes and calculations, he was basically told “Shut up, this is a science,” writes Harris.
Harris said the Ohio example was “emblematic” of what occurred throughout the night.
“I watched them call Tennessee eleven minutes after the polls closed without a single vote counted and with no exit poll,” Harris told the Alex Jones Show, joking that the people counting the ballots must have been “clairvotant”.
“Nobody knows anything about elections nowadays, what we are doing is watching the TV networks announce to us who the winner is based on a single private organization called NEP,” said Harris.
In Florida, which Democrats are claiming as an Obama victory, Harris noted how the voting trend changed only after the lights went out.
“They were calling Florida for Obama, they were separated by 40,000 votes, Pinellas County had just announced ‘we’ve set aside 10,000 ballots that we won’t count until tomorrow’….this is the stuff that’s really going on, there were 400,000 uncounted provisional ballots in Arizona and there were massive meltdowns in Pima County….so we are just now beginning to unravel what really happened during this election,” said Harris.
Harris emphasized that she was an Independent and supported neither major candidate, but that the system was obviously broken and bore little resemblance to a democratic process.
She also pointed out how the outcomes of key battleground states were announced before the voting machine results were even counted.
Harris said she was still going through the reams of data in her possession and would be releasing more information on her website next week.
“If we’re going to accept the idea that they can just tell us who won without counting any votes then….do we deserve this?” asked Harris.
*********************
Source: Paul Joseph Watson, Prison Planet
Florida and Ohio called for Obama before substantial number of ballots checked
Vote fraud expert Bev Harris told the Alex Jones Show that a substantial number of votes for Mitt Romney in the key battleground states of Florida and Ohio, both of which went to Obama, were not even counted before the result was announced.
Harris, the founder of non-partisan elections watchdog Black Box Voting Inc., is a well known vote fraud expert whose work has been featured in the New York Times, Washington Post, Time Magazine, CNN, ABC, MSNBC, CBS, Fox News, and NBC.
Harris said that a number of problems with voting in the days after the election came “flooding in” from across the country. As we previously highlighted, reports of electronic voting machine irregularities were widespread almost as soon as voting began on Tuesday.
Harris pointed to the actions of Karl Rove, who confronted Fox News for calling Ohio for Obama when only a mere fraction of the votes had been counted and the two candidates were separated by just 100,000 votes.
Rove attempted to explain to Fox News anchors that there were far too many outstanding votes left to be able to call Ohio for Obama, at least half a million and many in Romney strongholds, but his concerns were instantly dismissed.
“Based not on actual votes, but on projections from a single private entity, the National Election Pool (NEP), we were all told what the election results were going to be. When Rove pulled out his notes and calculations, he was basically told “Shut up, this is a science,” writes Harris.
Harris said the Ohio example was “emblematic” of what occurred throughout the night.
“I watched them call Tennessee eleven minutes after the polls closed without a single vote counted and with no exit poll,” Harris told the Alex Jones Show, joking that the people counting the ballots must have been “clairvotant”.
“Nobody knows anything about elections nowadays, what we are doing is watching the TV networks announce to us who the winner is based on a single private organization called NEP,” said Harris.
In Florida, which Democrats are claiming as an Obama victory, Harris noted how the voting trend changed only after the lights went out.
“They were calling Florida for Obama, they were separated by 40,000 votes, Pinellas County had just announced ‘we’ve set aside 10,000 ballots that we won’t count until tomorrow’….this is the stuff that’s really going on, there were 400,000 uncounted provisional ballots in Arizona and there were massive meltdowns in Pima County….so we are just now beginning to unravel what really happened during this election,” said Harris.
Harris emphasized that she was an Independent and supported neither major candidate, but that the system was obviously broken and bore little resemblance to a democratic process.
She also pointed out how the outcomes of key battleground states were announced before the voting machine results were even counted.
Harris said she was still going through the reams of data in her possession and would be releasing more information on her website next week.
“If we’re going to accept the idea that they can just tell us who won without counting any votes then….do we deserve this?” asked Harris.
*********************
Source: Paul Joseph Watson, Prison Planet
[VIDEO] College students chant for ‘Karl Marx’ and ‘socialism’ in front of White House at Obama victory rally
November 10, 2012
By Timothy Dionisopoulos
WATCH (WARNING: EXPLICIT LANGUAGE): Students chant for "Karl Marx" and more "socialism" in front of White House to celebrate President Obama's reelection Tuesday night
(CampusReform.org) - A group of college students chanted “Karl Marx” and “socialism” while celebrating President Obama’s electoral victory in front of the White House late Tuesday night, a video shot by Campus Reform reveals.
The raucous group of students chanted “Karl Marx, Karl Marx, Karl Marx,” and cited abortion, socialism, and “Obama phones” as reasons for their support of President Obama’s second term.
Those students were among thousands from colleges across Washington, D.C. who spontaneously gathered in front of fences around the north lawn of the White House to celebrate President Obama’s election victory.
Students present at the rally told Campus Reform that they were supporting the President for a variety of reasons.
“Obama phones,” said an unidentified student. “Everyone is getting a f**king Obama phone.”
Another concern for many of Obama’s college supporters was gay rights.
“I don’t want to be a second class citizen...because I’m gay,” he told campus reform.
Immigration was another major issue among college students at the rally. A large contingent of DREAM Act supporters rallied in the back of the crowd. The supporters chanted “DREAMERS” and held signs with the phrases “Keep Families Together” and “Support the Maryland DREAM Act.”
One unidentified Georgetown undergraduate stated she voted for Obama because “Immigration means a lot to me and I want the DREAM Act to pass.” She continued “young people deserve the opportunity to be whatever they want to be.”
Another student who supported the DREAM act claimed “I’m out here because Obama was reelected. It’s great to have change to move forward.”
One student from Howard stated she couldn’t vote for Romney because “I can’t support someone who wants to take away financial aid.”
After midnight, cars crowded the roads and honked their horns while supporters crowded the sidewalks of Northwest Washington D.C. Students cheered “Obama” while others carried large flags emblazoned with the iconic Obama “O” symbol.
By Timothy Dionisopoulos
WATCH (WARNING: EXPLICIT LANGUAGE): Students chant for "Karl Marx" and more "socialism" in front of White House to celebrate President Obama's reelection Tuesday night
(CampusReform.org) - A group of college students chanted “Karl Marx” and “socialism” while celebrating President Obama’s electoral victory in front of the White House late Tuesday night, a video shot by Campus Reform reveals.
The raucous group of students chanted “Karl Marx, Karl Marx, Karl Marx,” and cited abortion, socialism, and “Obama phones” as reasons for their support of President Obama’s second term.
Those students were among thousands from colleges across Washington, D.C. who spontaneously gathered in front of fences around the north lawn of the White House to celebrate President Obama’s election victory.
Students present at the rally told Campus Reform that they were supporting the President for a variety of reasons.
“Obama phones,” said an unidentified student. “Everyone is getting a f**king Obama phone.”
Another concern for many of Obama’s college supporters was gay rights.
“I don’t want to be a second class citizen...because I’m gay,” he told campus reform.
Immigration was another major issue among college students at the rally. A large contingent of DREAM Act supporters rallied in the back of the crowd. The supporters chanted “DREAMERS” and held signs with the phrases “Keep Families Together” and “Support the Maryland DREAM Act.”
One unidentified Georgetown undergraduate stated she voted for Obama because “Immigration means a lot to me and I want the DREAM Act to pass.” She continued “young people deserve the opportunity to be whatever they want to be.”
Another student who supported the DREAM act claimed “I’m out here because Obama was reelected. It’s great to have change to move forward.”
One student from Howard stated she couldn’t vote for Romney because “I can’t support someone who wants to take away financial aid.”
After midnight, cars crowded the roads and honked their horns while supporters crowded the sidewalks of Northwest Washington D.C. Students cheered “Obama” while others carried large flags emblazoned with the iconic Obama “O” symbol.
Post Election Racism On Display Courtesy of MSNBC
November 10, 2012
YouTube
Why blacks continue to enslave themselves is beyond me. It is really disheartening to think that many of their so-called enemies wish a better life for them than themselves. Please tell me, What does it take?
YouTube
Why blacks continue to enslave themselves is beyond me. It is really disheartening to think that many of their so-called enemies wish a better life for them than themselves. Please tell me, What does it take?
Gen. David Petraeus Resigns Days Before Benghazi Hearings To Avoid Testifying
Debbie Hamilton
Central Intelligence Agency Director David Petraeus resigned, reportedly, because he cheated on his wife with a staffer, citing "extremely poor judgment" for having an extramarital affair.
Uh huh. I suppose it is just a coincidence that he was slated to testify before Congress next week on the terror attack and ultimate murder of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, in Benghazi.
I suppose it is also coincidence that now Petraeus will NOT testify in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee because his resignation is immediate. Uh huh.
"This afternoon, the President graciously accepted my resignation," Petraeus said in the letter. (NBC)
Something smells fishy. Petraeus went to the White House, but he went because Obama called him:
On Thursday (yesterday) President Obama called CIA Director David Petreaus to the White House for a personal coversation and meeting. Petreaus did not initiate the meeting – He (the Gen) was previously scheduled to attend an intelligence meeting at the same time and instead had to make arrangements for a Senior Staff to fill his stead. Then today General Petreaus has offically resigned….. [snip]
Yeah, so what reason is there for going “public” with the “affair”, if, if, that is indeed the true motivation for the resignation – why make it public? [snip]
And the Media gets the Official Letter of resignation broadcasted SIMULTANEOUS to the actual public notice of resignation. Within moments…. c’mon – seriously? (The Last Refuge)
Will Congressional Republicans subpoena him to force him to testify? This thing stinks to high hell. (ZIP)
Bret Baier of Fox News just tweeted, "With Petraeus’ resignation effective immediately, he will not testify next week & lawmakers are said to be 'stunned' by the announcement." [snip]
This is only the latest in a string of groundshaking events demonstrating that the Obama administration hid information vital to the American people during the last days of the 2012 election cycle. The fact that the most respected soldier of his generation, Petraeus, would be leaving the administration during an Obama second term, had to be known by the White House prior to the election. And they said nothing in order to run out the clock.
The fact that Attorney General Eric Holder was considering stepping down from the administration had to be known by the White House prior to the election. Meanwhile, during the election cycle, the Obama administration claimed executive privilege in order to shield Holder from questions about Fast and Furious.
The fact that an American drone was fired upon in international airspace by Iranian airplanes was hidden from the American public for a week in order to prevent the American public from recognizing the failure of the Obama Iranian foreign policy.
The facts in Benghazi were lied about by virtually every member of the Obama administration for weeks upon weeks.
The fact that the administration had been slow-walking reams of vital regulation to beyond the election in order to avoid scaring off voters was hidden from the public. (Breitbart)
The families and parents of the Benghazi dead and injured should be screaming at the top of their lungs.
Oh, and Washington's intelligence and political communities were SHOCKED, shocked they tell us. Perhaps shocked at the given reason for Gen. David Petraeus resigning, but we are not shocked at the real reason, nor are we shocked at the timing.
From This Ain't Hell:
The timing is a little odd, especially in light of the rumors that Secretary of Defense Leon Paneta is tired of flying at taxpayer expense every weekend to his California home and plans on resigning,..
Does Petraeus WANT to testify, without the confines of his current job? He probably knows a lot. He should be subpoenaed.
There is some discussion in the high circles of Washington as to whether there was a growing unwillingness on the part of Petreaeus to continue to participare in the Benghazi cover-up when giving testimony to Congress. (Editor, Gerard Direct)
CIA Analyst on Petraeus Departure: “TIMING IS TOO PERFECT… IT REALLY SMELLS” (Video)
Retired Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters accused the Obama Administration of holding on to the news of Petraeus’ affair until they needed it – right before he was to go before a Senate committee and get grilled on Benghazi.
“The timing is too perfect for the Obama administration. Just as the administration claimed it was purely coincidence that the Benghazi consulate was attacked on 9-11. Now it’s purely coincidence that this affair surfaces right after the election but before the intelligence chiefs go to capital hill to get grilled…. It really smells.“
Resigned with a "gun to his head"?
General Petreaus seems to have been killed, so that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton may live. [snip]
Or is this Petraus' way of..."Going Galt"? If any man can survive the coming storm, then return to lead us out, it would be him...
UPDATE:
David Petraeus Allegedly Had an Affair With His Biographer, Paula Broadwell [Video]
Paula Broadwell under FBI investigation over access to his email, law enforcement officials say.
Source
You’ve Got To Be Kidding Me!
Nov. 10, 2012
Now I have heard everything. Sit down folks. General David Petraeus, holder of the following medals:
Defense Distinguished Service Medal (4)
Army Distinguished Service Medal (3)
Defense Superior Service Medal (2)
Legion of Merit (4)
Bronze Star Medal with Valor
Defense Meritorious Service Medal
NATO Meritorious Service Medal
Officer of the Order of Australia
And many others
Has resigned because of an extra-marital affair.
CIA Director David Petraeus submitted his letter of resignation Friday, after admitting to an extramarital affair.
Petraeus, in a message to staff, said President Obama accepted his resignation after the two met on Thursday afternoon. Petraeus said that he asked “to be allowed” to step down.
“After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair. Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours,” Petraeus said. “This afternoon, the President graciously accepted my resignation.”
The move comes amid the unfolding controversy surrounding the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya. Scrutiny has fallen on a range of agencies including the CIA. The director had been expected to testify at hearings next week. But Petraeus, in his resignation message, cited strictly “personal reasons” surrounding his affair which until now had not been disclosed.
Obama, in a written statement, said Petraeus provided an “extraordinary service to the United States for decades.”
“By any measure, he was one of the outstanding General officers of his generation, helping our military adapt to new challenges, and leading our men and women in uniform through a remarkable period of service in Iraq and Afghanistan, where he helped our nation put those wars on a path to a responsible end,” Obama said. He said he has named Michael Morell, the agency’s deputy director, to serve as acting director.
The decision abruptly ends the public-service career of one of the military’s most vaunted leaders. He led the surge in Iraq, and was later tapped to lead U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan — following two years at the helm of U.S. Central Command. In April 2011, Obama again tapped Petraeus to lead the CIA.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said Petraeus’ resignation “represents the loss of one of our nation’s most respected public servants.”
Petraeus’ wife, Holly, also works in the Obama administration, for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Source
History teaches us that under in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin the Red Army was purged of its best officers and men. In fact the purge nearly destroyed the Red Army and it was a real possibility that due to the purge (And killing of these men) that Germany could have destroyed the Soviet Union.
Now look to today. First Cmdr. Joseph Darlak, captain of the
frigate Vandegrift, then, Capt. Owen Honors was relieved of duty Tuesday
as commander of the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, then General Ham
was relieved. There is a massive Reduction in Forces happening in the military. While civilian (union) workers are not being fired, the men and women in uniform are being basically fired.
Rumors are rampant that there was a Seven Days in May coup d’etat being planned if Obama won. I doubt it, bum Obama is removing all and any opposition to his plans there can be. Rumors are also rampant that this was the last free election we as a nation will ever have. That Obama has no intention of ever giving up power and he will soon find a way to eliminate both Houses of Congress and the Supreme Court. Why not? Already the left has declared him G-d.
I fear the end is nearing for the United States of America. A once proud and free nation now subjected to the whim of a dictator. G-d help us all!
Posted by findalis @ Monkey in the Middle
Now I have heard everything. Sit down folks. General David Petraeus, holder of the following medals:
Defense Distinguished Service Medal (4)
Army Distinguished Service Medal (3)
Defense Superior Service Medal (2)
Legion of Merit (4)
Bronze Star Medal with Valor
Defense Meritorious Service Medal
NATO Meritorious Service Medal
Officer of the Order of Australia
And many others
Has resigned because of an extra-marital affair.
CIA Director David Petraeus submitted his letter of resignation Friday, after admitting to an extramarital affair.
Petraeus, in a message to staff, said President Obama accepted his resignation after the two met on Thursday afternoon. Petraeus said that he asked “to be allowed” to step down.
“After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair. Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours,” Petraeus said. “This afternoon, the President graciously accepted my resignation.”
The move comes amid the unfolding controversy surrounding the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya. Scrutiny has fallen on a range of agencies including the CIA. The director had been expected to testify at hearings next week. But Petraeus, in his resignation message, cited strictly “personal reasons” surrounding his affair which until now had not been disclosed.
Obama, in a written statement, said Petraeus provided an “extraordinary service to the United States for decades.”
“By any measure, he was one of the outstanding General officers of his generation, helping our military adapt to new challenges, and leading our men and women in uniform through a remarkable period of service in Iraq and Afghanistan, where he helped our nation put those wars on a path to a responsible end,” Obama said. He said he has named Michael Morell, the agency’s deputy director, to serve as acting director.
The decision abruptly ends the public-service career of one of the military’s most vaunted leaders. He led the surge in Iraq, and was later tapped to lead U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan — following two years at the helm of U.S. Central Command. In April 2011, Obama again tapped Petraeus to lead the CIA.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said Petraeus’ resignation “represents the loss of one of our nation’s most respected public servants.”
Petraeus’ wife, Holly, also works in the Obama administration, for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Source
History teaches us that under in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin the Red Army was purged of its best officers and men. In fact the purge nearly destroyed the Red Army and it was a real possibility that due to the purge (And killing of these men) that Germany could have destroyed the Soviet Union.
Now look to today. First Cmdr. Joseph Darlak, captain of the
frigate Vandegrift, then, Capt. Owen Honors was relieved of duty Tuesday
as commander of the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, then General Ham
was relieved. There is a massive Reduction in Forces happening in the military. While civilian (union) workers are not being fired, the men and women in uniform are being basically fired.
Rumors are rampant that there was a Seven Days in May coup d’etat being planned if Obama won. I doubt it, bum Obama is removing all and any opposition to his plans there can be. Rumors are also rampant that this was the last free election we as a nation will ever have. That Obama has no intention of ever giving up power and he will soon find a way to eliminate both Houses of Congress and the Supreme Court. Why not? Already the left has declared him G-d.
I fear the end is nearing for the United States of America. A once proud and free nation now subjected to the whim of a dictator. G-d help us all!
Posted by findalis @ Monkey in the Middle
OBAMA REELECTION TRIGGERS MASSIVE LAYOFFS ACROSS AMERICA
November 10, 2012
EAST CARBON, Carbon County — A Utah coal company owned by a vocal critic of President Barack Obama has laid off 102 miners. More>>
Links To The Related Stories Below Can Be Found Here>>
TurboCare, Oce laying off more than 220 workers
ATI plans to lay off 172 workers in North Richland Hills
SpaceX claims its first victims as Rocketdyne lays off 100
CVPH lays off 17 as part of fiscal belt-tightening
FirstEnergy to cut 400 jobs by 2016, cites lower prices, competition
Career Education cutting 900 jobs, closing 23 campuses
Canceled program costs 115 jobs at Ohio air base
AMD Trims Austin Workforce
100 Workers Lose Jobs As Caterpillar Closes Plant In Owatonna
Exide to lay off 150 workers
TE Connectivity to close Guilford plant, lay off 620
More Layoffs for Major Wind Company
Cigna to Lay Off 1,300 Workers Worldwide
Energizer to Slash Workforce by 10% – Or About 1,500 Jobs
EAST CARBON, Carbon County — A Utah coal company owned by a vocal critic of President Barack Obama has laid off 102 miners. More>>
Links To The Related Stories Below Can Be Found Here>>
TurboCare, Oce laying off more than 220 workers
ATI plans to lay off 172 workers in North Richland Hills
SpaceX claims its first victims as Rocketdyne lays off 100
CVPH lays off 17 as part of fiscal belt-tightening
FirstEnergy to cut 400 jobs by 2016, cites lower prices, competition
Career Education cutting 900 jobs, closing 23 campuses
Canceled program costs 115 jobs at Ohio air base
AMD Trims Austin Workforce
100 Workers Lose Jobs As Caterpillar Closes Plant In Owatonna
Exide to lay off 150 workers
TE Connectivity to close Guilford plant, lay off 620
More Layoffs for Major Wind Company
Cigna to Lay Off 1,300 Workers Worldwide
Energizer to Slash Workforce by 10% – Or About 1,500 Jobs
Pedophiles want same rights as homosexuals
November 9, 2012
by Jack Minor –
Greeley Gazette
Via Politically Trending: Claim unfair to be stigmatized for sexual orientation
Using the same tactics used by “gay” rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals.
Critics of the homosexual lifestyle have long claimed that once it became acceptable to identify homosexuality as simply an “alternative lifestyle” or sexual orientation, logically nothing would be off limits. “Gay” advocates have taken offense at such a position insisting this would never happen. However, psychiatrists are now beginning to advocate redefining pedophilia in the same way homosexuality was redefined several years ago.
In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. A group of psychiatrists with B4U-Act recently held a symposium proposing a new definition of pedophilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders of the APA.
B4U-Act calls pedophiles “minor-attracted people.” The organization’s website states its purpose is to, “help mental health professionals learn more about attraction to minors and to consider the effects of stereotyping, stigma and fear.”
In 1998 The APA issued a report claiming “that the ‘negative potential’ of adult sex with children was ‘overstated’ and that ‘the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from childhood sexual abuse experiences.”
Pedophilia has already been granted protected status by the Federal Government. The Matthew Shephard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act lists “sexual orientation” as a protected class; however, it does not define the term.
Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation;” however, the amendment was defeated by Democrats. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fl) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law. “This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘philias’ and fetishes and ‘isms’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.”
The White House praised the bill saying, “At root, this isn’t just about our laws; this is about who we are as a people. This is about whether we value one another – whether we embrace our differences rather than allowing them to become a source of animus.”
Earlier this year two psychologists in Canada declared that pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality or heterosexuality.
Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal, told members of Parliament, “Pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offense from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality.”
He went on to say, “True pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation. He may, however, remain abstinent.”
When asked if he should be comparing pedophiles to homosexuals, Van Gijseghem replied, “If, for instance, you were living in a society where heterosexuality is proscribed or prohibited and you were told that you had to get therapy to change your sexual orientation, you would probably say that that is slightly crazy. In other words, you would not accept that at all. I use this analogy to say that, yes indeed, pedophiles do not change their sexual orientation.”
Dr. Quinsey, professor emeritus of psychology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, agreed with Van Gijseghem. Quinsey said pedophiles’ sexual interests prefer children and, “There is no evidence that this sort of preference can be changed through treatment or through anything else.”
In July, 2010 Harvard health Publications said, “Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges.”
Linda Harvey, of Mission America, said the push for pedophiles to have equal rights will become more and more common as LGBT groups continue to assert themselves. “It’s all part of a plan to introduce sex to children at younger and younger ages; to convince them that normal friendship is actually a sexual attraction.”
Milton Diamond, a University of Hawaii professor and director of the Pacific Center for Sex and Society, stated that child pornography could be beneficial to society because, “Potential sex offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex against children.”
Diamond is a distinguished lecturer for the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco. The IASHS openly advocated for the repeal of the Revolutionary war ban on homosexuals serving in the military.
The IASHS lists, on its website, a list of “basic sexual rights” that includes “the right to engage in sexual acts or activities of any kind whatsoever, providing they do not involve nonconsensual acts, violence, constraint, coercion or fraud.” Another right is to, “be free of persecution, condemnation, discrimination, or societal intervention in private sexual behavior” and “the freedom of any sexual thought, fantasy or desire.” The organization also says that no one should be “disadvantaged because of age.”
Sex offender laws protecting children have been challenged in several states including California, Georgia and Iowa. Sex offenders claim the laws prohibiting them from living near schools or parks are unfair because it penalizes them for life.
by Jack Minor –
Greeley Gazette
Via Politically Trending: Claim unfair to be stigmatized for sexual orientation
Critics of the homosexual lifestyle have long claimed that once it became acceptable to identify homosexuality as simply an “alternative lifestyle” or sexual orientation, logically nothing would be off limits. “Gay” advocates have taken offense at such a position insisting this would never happen. However, psychiatrists are now beginning to advocate redefining pedophilia in the same way homosexuality was redefined several years ago.
In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. A group of psychiatrists with B4U-Act recently held a symposium proposing a new definition of pedophilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders of the APA.
B4U-Act calls pedophiles “minor-attracted people.” The organization’s website states its purpose is to, “help mental health professionals learn more about attraction to minors and to consider the effects of stereotyping, stigma and fear.”
In 1998 The APA issued a report claiming “that the ‘negative potential’ of adult sex with children was ‘overstated’ and that ‘the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from childhood sexual abuse experiences.”
Pedophilia has already been granted protected status by the Federal Government. The Matthew Shephard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act lists “sexual orientation” as a protected class; however, it does not define the term.
Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation;” however, the amendment was defeated by Democrats. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fl) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law. “This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘philias’ and fetishes and ‘isms’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.”
The White House praised the bill saying, “At root, this isn’t just about our laws; this is about who we are as a people. This is about whether we value one another – whether we embrace our differences rather than allowing them to become a source of animus.”
Earlier this year two psychologists in Canada declared that pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality or heterosexuality.
Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal, told members of Parliament, “Pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offense from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality.”
He went on to say, “True pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation. He may, however, remain abstinent.”
When asked if he should be comparing pedophiles to homosexuals, Van Gijseghem replied, “If, for instance, you were living in a society where heterosexuality is proscribed or prohibited and you were told that you had to get therapy to change your sexual orientation, you would probably say that that is slightly crazy. In other words, you would not accept that at all. I use this analogy to say that, yes indeed, pedophiles do not change their sexual orientation.”
Dr. Quinsey, professor emeritus of psychology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, agreed with Van Gijseghem. Quinsey said pedophiles’ sexual interests prefer children and, “There is no evidence that this sort of preference can be changed through treatment or through anything else.”
In July, 2010 Harvard health Publications said, “Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges.”
Linda Harvey, of Mission America, said the push for pedophiles to have equal rights will become more and more common as LGBT groups continue to assert themselves. “It’s all part of a plan to introduce sex to children at younger and younger ages; to convince them that normal friendship is actually a sexual attraction.”
Milton Diamond, a University of Hawaii professor and director of the Pacific Center for Sex and Society, stated that child pornography could be beneficial to society because, “Potential sex offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex against children.”
Diamond is a distinguished lecturer for the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco. The IASHS openly advocated for the repeal of the Revolutionary war ban on homosexuals serving in the military.
The IASHS lists, on its website, a list of “basic sexual rights” that includes “the right to engage in sexual acts or activities of any kind whatsoever, providing they do not involve nonconsensual acts, violence, constraint, coercion or fraud.” Another right is to, “be free of persecution, condemnation, discrimination, or societal intervention in private sexual behavior” and “the freedom of any sexual thought, fantasy or desire.” The organization also says that no one should be “disadvantaged because of age.”
Sex offender laws protecting children have been challenged in several states including California, Georgia and Iowa. Sex offenders claim the laws prohibiting them from living near schools or parks are unfair because it penalizes them for life.
The Liberal Media Are More Powerful Than Ever
Nov.10, 2012
by Cliff Kincaid
(Accuracy In Media) - Writing before Obama won the election, Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel of the Daily Caller contended that bias, dishonesty, and corruption were helping to undermine and destroy the liberal media. “The broadcast networks, the big daily newspapers, the newsweeklies—they’re done,” they said. “It’s only a matter of time, and everyone who works there knows it.”
Unfortunately, there is no evidence this is the case. Although liberal news outlets are losing viewers and readers, Obama’s victory has invigorated these news organizations and given them a new lease on life. They are more powerful than ever because they correctly predicted the race. They understood the nature of the electorate and how it had shifted in Obama’s favor. What they have achieved is something that the conservative media were striving for—a measure of credibility. It came not through their reporting, of course, but through their emphasis on polls and an understanding of how a progressive infrastructure, financed largely by George Soros, has assumed great importance for the Democratic Party machine.
Many in the liberal media are gloating that so many Fox News commentators were proven wrong in their predictions of a Romney victory. Not surprisingly, the conservative predictions of a Romney victory were mocked on Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show.
By contrast, Nate Silver of The New York Times, one of the nation’s most prominent liberal outlets, has achieved enormous credibility, having correctly predicted Obama’s victory and the outcome in 50 out of 50 states. USA Today noted, “Silver had been under fire from Republicans for consistently putting Obama’s chance of winning in a range of 60-90 percent.” The FiveThirtyEight blogger turned out to be correct.
Bret Baier used his “Winners & Losers” segment on the Fox News Channel Special Report program to acknowledge that liberal or Democratic-leaning surveys and polls came out on top in predicting this year’s presidential election. He noted that a Fordham University study “credits the Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling (PPP) as the most accurate of the survey companies this year.” PPP also does a poll in partnership with the Daily Kos and the Services Employees International Union (SEIU), and it was second.
Rasmussen, one of the favorite polls of conservatives, was near the bottom of the list of the 28 polling organizations. Rasmussen had Romney leading Obama 49-48 percent on Election Day.
University of Colorado political science professors Kenneth Bickers and Michael Berry, who appeared on Fox News and talk radio, had projected an Electoral College landslide for Mitt Romney based on a model using economic factors such as unemployment data and changes in personal income. On the Fox Business website, Gerri Willis cited the prediction, noting that “Obama faces the headwinds of history. No President since FDR has been re-elected when unemployment is above 8 percent.” How many times did we hear that statistic mentioned in the context of the belief that Romney was destined to win?
“The model was wrong,” Bickers is now quoted as saying. Eric Gorski of the Denver Post reported, “Bickers said the Obama campaign managed to neutralize Romney’s ‘strengths on economic stewardship’—exit polls showed voters held similar views on each candidate’s ability to steer the economy—in part by shifting attention to issues such as immigration and women’s reproductive rights that play to Obama’s strengths.”
None of this negates the fact that Carlson and Patel were correct in their analysis of liberal media bias. They wrote, “Not in our lifetimes have so many in the press dropped the pretense of objectivity in order to help a political candidate. The media are rooting for Barack Obama. They’re not hiding it.” They went on to say that “many in the press are every bit as corrupt as conservatives have accused them of being,” but added, “The good news is, it’s almost over.”
It’s not over. Conservative use of flawed polling data has played into the hands of the liberal media. In order to recapture credibility in covering politics, the conservative media will have to acknowledge not only the bias on the other side, but the bias on their own.
A good start was made by Breitbart’s John Nolte, who wrote: “Mea culpa. We were dead wrong about the polls. Not only did the Real Clear Politics poll of polls end up being almost perfectly precise, but the most accurate pollster of the 2012 election cycle ended up being the Daily Kos’ Public Policy Polling (PPP). My guys, Gallup and Rasmussen, didn’t even make the top twenty.”
Real Clear Politics, an aggregator of polls, had Obama winning by 2.5 percent. The actual results were Obama 50.8 and Romney 48.3.
by Cliff Kincaid
Unfortunately, there is no evidence this is the case. Although liberal news outlets are losing viewers and readers, Obama’s victory has invigorated these news organizations and given them a new lease on life. They are more powerful than ever because they correctly predicted the race. They understood the nature of the electorate and how it had shifted in Obama’s favor. What they have achieved is something that the conservative media were striving for—a measure of credibility. It came not through their reporting, of course, but through their emphasis on polls and an understanding of how a progressive infrastructure, financed largely by George Soros, has assumed great importance for the Democratic Party machine.
Many in the liberal media are gloating that so many Fox News commentators were proven wrong in their predictions of a Romney victory. Not surprisingly, the conservative predictions of a Romney victory were mocked on Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show.
By contrast, Nate Silver of The New York Times, one of the nation’s most prominent liberal outlets, has achieved enormous credibility, having correctly predicted Obama’s victory and the outcome in 50 out of 50 states. USA Today noted, “Silver had been under fire from Republicans for consistently putting Obama’s chance of winning in a range of 60-90 percent.” The FiveThirtyEight blogger turned out to be correct.
Bret Baier used his “Winners & Losers” segment on the Fox News Channel Special Report program to acknowledge that liberal or Democratic-leaning surveys and polls came out on top in predicting this year’s presidential election. He noted that a Fordham University study “credits the Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling (PPP) as the most accurate of the survey companies this year.” PPP also does a poll in partnership with the Daily Kos and the Services Employees International Union (SEIU), and it was second.
Rasmussen, one of the favorite polls of conservatives, was near the bottom of the list of the 28 polling organizations. Rasmussen had Romney leading Obama 49-48 percent on Election Day.
University of Colorado political science professors Kenneth Bickers and Michael Berry, who appeared on Fox News and talk radio, had projected an Electoral College landslide for Mitt Romney based on a model using economic factors such as unemployment data and changes in personal income. On the Fox Business website, Gerri Willis cited the prediction, noting that “Obama faces the headwinds of history. No President since FDR has been re-elected when unemployment is above 8 percent.” How many times did we hear that statistic mentioned in the context of the belief that Romney was destined to win?
“The model was wrong,” Bickers is now quoted as saying. Eric Gorski of the Denver Post reported, “Bickers said the Obama campaign managed to neutralize Romney’s ‘strengths on economic stewardship’—exit polls showed voters held similar views on each candidate’s ability to steer the economy—in part by shifting attention to issues such as immigration and women’s reproductive rights that play to Obama’s strengths.”
None of this negates the fact that Carlson and Patel were correct in their analysis of liberal media bias. They wrote, “Not in our lifetimes have so many in the press dropped the pretense of objectivity in order to help a political candidate. The media are rooting for Barack Obama. They’re not hiding it.” They went on to say that “many in the press are every bit as corrupt as conservatives have accused them of being,” but added, “The good news is, it’s almost over.”
It’s not over. Conservative use of flawed polling data has played into the hands of the liberal media. In order to recapture credibility in covering politics, the conservative media will have to acknowledge not only the bias on the other side, but the bias on their own.
A good start was made by Breitbart’s John Nolte, who wrote: “Mea culpa. We were dead wrong about the polls. Not only did the Real Clear Politics poll of polls end up being almost perfectly precise, but the most accurate pollster of the 2012 election cycle ended up being the Daily Kos’ Public Policy Polling (PPP). My guys, Gallup and Rasmussen, didn’t even make the top twenty.”
Real Clear Politics, an aggregator of polls, had Obama winning by 2.5 percent. The actual results were Obama 50.8 and Romney 48.3.
Friday, November 9, 2012
U.S. Set to Sponsor Health Insurance
Nov. 9, 2012
New York Times:
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will soon take on a new role as the sponsor of at least two nationwide health insurance plans to be operated under contract with the federal government and offered to consumers in every state.
Keep Reading>>
New York Times:
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will soon take on a new role as the sponsor of at least two nationwide health insurance plans to be operated under contract with the federal government and offered to consumers in every state.
Keep Reading>>
Dead pig wrapped in Mitt Romney T-shirt dumped at GOP office
Nov. 9, 2012
L.A Times:
Manhattan Beach police were looking Friday for the person or persons who wrapped a dead pig in a Mitt Romney T-shirt and dumped it at a local Republican Party campaign office.
The dead animal was found early Thursday morning at the GOP office in the 3900 block of Highland Avenue, the Manhattan Beach Police Department said.
Witness Andy Gaeta told KABC-TV that he thought the body was that of a dead human when he saw police approach it, but then realized it was a pig, most likely from a butcher shop, with barbed wire around its head.
Animal control officers first put the pig in a trash bin, then returned and removed the bin as evidence in an investigation of illegal dumping of an animal carcass, KABC-TV reported.
No other details were immediately available. Anyone with information is asked to call police at (310) 802-5140.
L.A Times:
Manhattan Beach police were looking Friday for the person or persons who wrapped a dead pig in a Mitt Romney T-shirt and dumped it at a local Republican Party campaign office.
The dead animal was found early Thursday morning at the GOP office in the 3900 block of Highland Avenue, the Manhattan Beach Police Department said.
Witness Andy Gaeta told KABC-TV that he thought the body was that of a dead human when he saw police approach it, but then realized it was a pig, most likely from a butcher shop, with barbed wire around its head.
Animal control officers first put the pig in a trash bin, then returned and removed the bin as evidence in an investigation of illegal dumping of an animal carcass, KABC-TV reported.
No other details were immediately available. Anyone with information is asked to call police at (310) 802-5140.
Fraud in PA: Obama Got Over 99% of Vote at Polls Where GOP Inspectors were Removed; Turnout Somehow "30%" Above Gov't Numbers
11.9.12
Pundit Press:
Across Philadelphia, GOP poll inspectors were forcibly (and illegally) removed from polling locations. Coincidentally (or not), Mr. Obama received "astronomical" numbers in those very same regions, including locations where he received "over 99%" of the vote.
Ward 4, which also had a poll watcher dressed in Obama attire, went massively for Obama. Mr. Obama received 99.5% of the vote, defeating Mr. Romney 9,955 to 55.
Is it odd that a county that expelled GOP inspectors and had people openly campaigning for Obama ended with 99.5% for Obama and 9955 votes for him? It's up to you to decide.
Another problem: "Voter turnout in Philadelphia was around 60 percent, according to state election figures." In these precincts it was well over 90% according to House Speaker Sam Smith of Pennsylvania. Considering all of the other "coincidences" going on, it doesn't seem kosher.
Clear fraud, odd percentages, and numbers that don't add up? Congratulations on your re-election, Mr. Obama.
Update: Obama also won 99.8% of the vote in 44 Cleveland districts.
Pundit Press:
Across Philadelphia, GOP poll inspectors were forcibly (and illegally) removed from polling locations. Coincidentally (or not), Mr. Obama received "astronomical" numbers in those very same regions, including locations where he received "over 99%" of the vote.
Ward 4, which also had a poll watcher dressed in Obama attire, went massively for Obama. Mr. Obama received 99.5% of the vote, defeating Mr. Romney 9,955 to 55.
Is it odd that a county that expelled GOP inspectors and had people openly campaigning for Obama ended with 99.5% for Obama and 9955 votes for him? It's up to you to decide.
Another problem: "Voter turnout in Philadelphia was around 60 percent, according to state election figures." In these precincts it was well over 90% according to House Speaker Sam Smith of Pennsylvania. Considering all of the other "coincidences" going on, it doesn't seem kosher.
Clear fraud, odd percentages, and numbers that don't add up? Congratulations on your re-election, Mr. Obama.
Update: Obama also won 99.8% of the vote in 44 Cleveland districts.
President didn’t win single state that required Voter ID
11.9.12
WND EXCLUSIVE
Did this dirty trick get Obama re-elected?
Did the suppression or lack of voter ID laws aid President Obama’s victory over Mitt Romney?
Obama did not win a single state that requires photo IDs to vote, although he was victorious in four states that require non-photo identification – Washington, Colorado, Ohio and Virginia. Those states accept as legitimate identification current utility bills, bank statements and paychecks.
Obama won several closely contested states that do not require any voter identification, including Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Wisconsin and Nevada.
The states that Obama lost that do require photo identification do not traditionally vote Republican. Tennessee, for example, voted Democrat in the 1972, 1992 and 1996 presidential elections. Georgia, which also requires photo ID, voted Democrat in the 1976, 1980 and 1992 presidential elections.
In Colorado, where non-photo identification is accepted, a review by RedState.com showed irregular voting patterns, finding that 10 counties had a total registration ranging between 104 to 140 percent of the respective populations.
When Media Trackers requested comment on the voter bloat in one area, Gilpin County, the county’s chief deputy Gail Maxwell explained, “This is just a reminder Gilpin is a Gaming Community. The voters come and go!”
RedState notes records show some of the counties in question maintained statistically unusual voting figures. Gilpin County had a 61 percent voter turnout in the 2010 election, and Hinsdale County had an astounding 92 percent voter turnout. Those figures are far above the Colorado average turnout of 48 percent and the national average of 41 percent.
In Pennsylvania, where Obama was victorious, an Oct. 2 ruling by a Pennsylvania judge put a voter ID law on hold, decreeing that election officials can still ask voters for photo identification but cannot require it.
Voter ID laws were entirely struck down in Texas and South Carolina. Romney carried both states.
WND previously reported a radical group that has a history of biased research provided data utilized in both cases that blocked the new voter ID laws.
The Brennan Center for Justice, heavily funded by billionaire activist George Soros, has been at the center of providing data claiming voter ID laws will disenfranchise minorities.
However, WND reported the very voter ID data used by Brennan has been called into question by experts and has been contradicted by other credible studies and even by the group’s own footnotes in the one study it conducted.
The three-judge panel in the landmark Texas case, for example, ruled that evidence showed the cost of obtaining a voter ID would fall most heavily on poor African-Americans and Hispanics in Texas and that such groups would face discrimination if the law were to be applied.
It was the second time voter ID laws were shot down in the U.S. In December, the Justice Department rejected the South Carolina voter ID law, also citing purported evidence minorities would be disenfranchised by the requirement to show photo identification to cast a ballot. It marked the first time that a voting law was refused clearance by Justice in nearly 20 years.
The Justice Department and attorneys representing the NAACP and ACLU were behind the lawsuit in South Carolina arguing against voter ID.
WND has found the Brennan Center’s data played a central role in both the Texas and South Carolina cases.
In the case of Texas, Brennan provided the Department of Justice with its research claiming to show how minorities were affected by voter ID laws.
That information was apparently incorporated in a letter from the Justice Department to Texas election officials requesting more information about the potential impact that the new photo ID requirement might have on minority voters.
After the Texas election commission replied, the Justice Department issued a final letter denying pre-clearance of voter ID laws. The letter mimicked the information provided to Justice by the Brennan center.
Brennan played a similar role in providing Justice with information used in the South Carolina case, according to documentation reviewed by WND.
The documentation includes the letter to the Department of Justice from the ACLU, the Brennan Center and the League of Women Voters of South Carolina.
WND also reviewed the Justice Department’s letters to the South Carolina attorney general’s office eventually denying pre-clearance of the voter ID laws, finding key information from Brennan incorporated in the documentation.
Brennan further provided the ACLU and NAACP with its data to use in the South Carolina and Texas arguments.
Voter ID data biased?
The Brennan Center is located at New York University School of Law. Its primary focus is so-called voting rights and creating a “living constitution” as well as pushing for a “living wage.”
In November 2006, the Brennan Center issued “Citizens Without Proof,” an extensive report that claimed voter ID policies will disfranchise millions of minority, elderly and low-income voters because those voting blocs are less likely to possess documentation than the general population.
The report is routinely cited by news media and activists seeking to prove voter ID is racist.
Also, the National Center for Public Policy Research notes that in its report on voter ID measures, the NAACP “relied heavily” on Brennan Center’s work.
In July, Politifact used the Brennan Center’s 2006 report to support Attorney General Eric Holder’s claim that 25 percent of African-Americans lack government-issued photo ID.
GroupSnoop.org, a website run by the National Center for Public Policy Research, recently posted a new profile of the Brennan Center that documents how its voter ID information is highly questionable and may be based on biased data.
In August 2011, Hans A. von Spakovsky and Alex Ingram of the Heritage Foundation critiqued the Brennan report, finding it is “both dubious in its methodology and results and suspect in its sweeping conclusions.”
According to the Heritage Foundation report, the Brennan Center used biased questioning to obtain its desired result concerning minority voters – a result that is actually contradicted by footnotes buried in the Brennan report itself.
“By eschewing many of the traditional scientific methods of data collection and analysis, the authors of the Brennan Center study appear to have pursued results that advance a particular political agenda rather than the truth about voter identification,” write Von Spakovsky and Ingram.
Heritage points out that the Brennan Center’s report was based entirely on one survey of only 987 “voting age American citizens.” However the report contained no information on how the survey determined whether a respondent was actually an American citizen.
Heritage found the Brennan survey used the responses of the 987 individuals to estimate the number of Americans without valid documentation based on the 2000 Census calculations of citizen voting-age population. Those Census figures, noted Heritage, “contain millions of U.S. residents who are ineligible to vote, thus contributing to the study’s overestimation of voters without a government-issued identification.”
Heritage charged the survey questions used in the Brennan Center’s report “are also suspect and appear to be designed to bolster the report’s biased findings.”
Brennan, for example, did not ask respondents whether they had government-issued IDs, but instead asked whether respondents had “readily available identification.”
“By asking whether such ID could be found ‘quickly’ or shown ‘tomorrow,’ the study seems to be trying to elicit a particular response: that those surveyed do not have ID,” noted Heritage.
The Brennan study is undermined by some of its own footnotes.
One footnote states that the survey “did not yield statistically significant results for differential rates of possession of citizenship documents by race, age, or other identified demographic factors.”
The footnote appears to contradict the very premise of the Brennan report.
Another footnote relates that 135 respondents “indicated that they had both a U.S. birth certificate and U.S. naturalization papers. This most likely indicates confusion on the part of the respondents.” In other words, Heritage notes, nearly 14 percent of the respondents provided contradictory answers.
The Brennan study further did not ask any of its participants whether they had student or tribal ID cards even though in some states, such as Arizona and Georgia, such cards are acceptable for the purpose of voting.
Heritage cited numerous studies that directly contradict the Brennan report – studies not widely cited by the news media in the voter ID debate.
The studies include:
An American University survey in Maryland, Indiana and Mississippi found that less than one-half of 1 percent of registered voters lacked a government-issued ID. Therefore, the study correctly concluded that “a photo ID as a requirement of voting does not appear to be a serious problem in any of the states.”
A 2006 survey of more than 36,000 voters found that only “23 people in the entire sample – less than one-tenth of one percent of reported voters” were unable to vote because of an ID requirement.
Besides receiving a reported $7.4 million from Soros’ Open Society Institute since 2000, the Brennan Center was also the recipient of grants from the Joyce Foundation from 2000 to 2003. President Obama served on the Joyce board from 1994 through 2002.
History of shoddy research
Brennan has a history of questionable research.
The center was at the heart of a national scandal in 2002 after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance act. The attorneys defending McCain-Feingold had reportedly based key portions of their case on research provided by the Brennan Center – research, Discover the Networks notes, that may have been “deliberately faked,” according to Weekly Standard Editor David Tell.
Tell quoted Brennan Center political scientist Jonathan Krasno admitting in his funding proposal to the Pew Charitable Trusts that the purpose of his group’s proposed study on campaign finance was for partisan political reasons.
Wrote Tell: “‘Issue Advocacy: Amassing the Case for Reform,’ dated Feb. 19, 1999, explained that ‘[the purpose of our acquiring the data set is not simply to advance knowledge for its own sake, but to fuel a continuous multi-faceted campaign to propel campaign reform forward.’ Dispassionate academic inquiry was so alien to the spirit of the thing that Brennan promised to suspend its work midstream, pre-publication, if the numbers turned out wrong. ‘Whether we proceed to phase two will depend on the judgment of whether the data provide a sufficiently powerful boost to the reform movement.’”
Tell claimed Brennan researchers “deliberately faked” their results.
With additional research by Brenda J. Elliott
WND EXCLUSIVE
Did this dirty trick get Obama re-elected?
Obama did not win a single state that requires photo IDs to vote, although he was victorious in four states that require non-photo identification – Washington, Colorado, Ohio and Virginia. Those states accept as legitimate identification current utility bills, bank statements and paychecks.
Obama won several closely contested states that do not require any voter identification, including Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Wisconsin and Nevada.
The states that Obama lost that do require photo identification do not traditionally vote Republican. Tennessee, for example, voted Democrat in the 1972, 1992 and 1996 presidential elections. Georgia, which also requires photo ID, voted Democrat in the 1976, 1980 and 1992 presidential elections.
In Colorado, where non-photo identification is accepted, a review by RedState.com showed irregular voting patterns, finding that 10 counties had a total registration ranging between 104 to 140 percent of the respective populations.
When Media Trackers requested comment on the voter bloat in one area, Gilpin County, the county’s chief deputy Gail Maxwell explained, “This is just a reminder Gilpin is a Gaming Community. The voters come and go!”
RedState notes records show some of the counties in question maintained statistically unusual voting figures. Gilpin County had a 61 percent voter turnout in the 2010 election, and Hinsdale County had an astounding 92 percent voter turnout. Those figures are far above the Colorado average turnout of 48 percent and the national average of 41 percent.
In Pennsylvania, where Obama was victorious, an Oct. 2 ruling by a Pennsylvania judge put a voter ID law on hold, decreeing that election officials can still ask voters for photo identification but cannot require it.
Voter ID laws were entirely struck down in Texas and South Carolina. Romney carried both states.
WND previously reported a radical group that has a history of biased research provided data utilized in both cases that blocked the new voter ID laws.
The Brennan Center for Justice, heavily funded by billionaire activist George Soros, has been at the center of providing data claiming voter ID laws will disenfranchise minorities.
However, WND reported the very voter ID data used by Brennan has been called into question by experts and has been contradicted by other credible studies and even by the group’s own footnotes in the one study it conducted.
The three-judge panel in the landmark Texas case, for example, ruled that evidence showed the cost of obtaining a voter ID would fall most heavily on poor African-Americans and Hispanics in Texas and that such groups would face discrimination if the law were to be applied.
It was the second time voter ID laws were shot down in the U.S. In December, the Justice Department rejected the South Carolina voter ID law, also citing purported evidence minorities would be disenfranchised by the requirement to show photo identification to cast a ballot. It marked the first time that a voting law was refused clearance by Justice in nearly 20 years.
The Justice Department and attorneys representing the NAACP and ACLU were behind the lawsuit in South Carolina arguing against voter ID.
WND has found the Brennan Center’s data played a central role in both the Texas and South Carolina cases.
In the case of Texas, Brennan provided the Department of Justice with its research claiming to show how minorities were affected by voter ID laws.
That information was apparently incorporated in a letter from the Justice Department to Texas election officials requesting more information about the potential impact that the new photo ID requirement might have on minority voters.
After the Texas election commission replied, the Justice Department issued a final letter denying pre-clearance of voter ID laws. The letter mimicked the information provided to Justice by the Brennan center.
Brennan played a similar role in providing Justice with information used in the South Carolina case, according to documentation reviewed by WND.
The documentation includes the letter to the Department of Justice from the ACLU, the Brennan Center and the League of Women Voters of South Carolina.
WND also reviewed the Justice Department’s letters to the South Carolina attorney general’s office eventually denying pre-clearance of the voter ID laws, finding key information from Brennan incorporated in the documentation.
Brennan further provided the ACLU and NAACP with its data to use in the South Carolina and Texas arguments.
Voter ID data biased?
The Brennan Center is located at New York University School of Law. Its primary focus is so-called voting rights and creating a “living constitution” as well as pushing for a “living wage.”
In November 2006, the Brennan Center issued “Citizens Without Proof,” an extensive report that claimed voter ID policies will disfranchise millions of minority, elderly and low-income voters because those voting blocs are less likely to possess documentation than the general population.
The report is routinely cited by news media and activists seeking to prove voter ID is racist.
Also, the National Center for Public Policy Research notes that in its report on voter ID measures, the NAACP “relied heavily” on Brennan Center’s work.
In July, Politifact used the Brennan Center’s 2006 report to support Attorney General Eric Holder’s claim that 25 percent of African-Americans lack government-issued photo ID.
GroupSnoop.org, a website run by the National Center for Public Policy Research, recently posted a new profile of the Brennan Center that documents how its voter ID information is highly questionable and may be based on biased data.
In August 2011, Hans A. von Spakovsky and Alex Ingram of the Heritage Foundation critiqued the Brennan report, finding it is “both dubious in its methodology and results and suspect in its sweeping conclusions.”
According to the Heritage Foundation report, the Brennan Center used biased questioning to obtain its desired result concerning minority voters – a result that is actually contradicted by footnotes buried in the Brennan report itself.
“By eschewing many of the traditional scientific methods of data collection and analysis, the authors of the Brennan Center study appear to have pursued results that advance a particular political agenda rather than the truth about voter identification,” write Von Spakovsky and Ingram.
Heritage points out that the Brennan Center’s report was based entirely on one survey of only 987 “voting age American citizens.” However the report contained no information on how the survey determined whether a respondent was actually an American citizen.
Heritage found the Brennan survey used the responses of the 987 individuals to estimate the number of Americans without valid documentation based on the 2000 Census calculations of citizen voting-age population. Those Census figures, noted Heritage, “contain millions of U.S. residents who are ineligible to vote, thus contributing to the study’s overestimation of voters without a government-issued identification.”
Heritage charged the survey questions used in the Brennan Center’s report “are also suspect and appear to be designed to bolster the report’s biased findings.”
Brennan, for example, did not ask respondents whether they had government-issued IDs, but instead asked whether respondents had “readily available identification.”
“By asking whether such ID could be found ‘quickly’ or shown ‘tomorrow,’ the study seems to be trying to elicit a particular response: that those surveyed do not have ID,” noted Heritage.
The Brennan study is undermined by some of its own footnotes.
One footnote states that the survey “did not yield statistically significant results for differential rates of possession of citizenship documents by race, age, or other identified demographic factors.”
The footnote appears to contradict the very premise of the Brennan report.
Another footnote relates that 135 respondents “indicated that they had both a U.S. birth certificate and U.S. naturalization papers. This most likely indicates confusion on the part of the respondents.” In other words, Heritage notes, nearly 14 percent of the respondents provided contradictory answers.
The Brennan study further did not ask any of its participants whether they had student or tribal ID cards even though in some states, such as Arizona and Georgia, such cards are acceptable for the purpose of voting.
Heritage cited numerous studies that directly contradict the Brennan report – studies not widely cited by the news media in the voter ID debate.
The studies include:
An American University survey in Maryland, Indiana and Mississippi found that less than one-half of 1 percent of registered voters lacked a government-issued ID. Therefore, the study correctly concluded that “a photo ID as a requirement of voting does not appear to be a serious problem in any of the states.”
A 2006 survey of more than 36,000 voters found that only “23 people in the entire sample – less than one-tenth of one percent of reported voters” were unable to vote because of an ID requirement.
Besides receiving a reported $7.4 million from Soros’ Open Society Institute since 2000, the Brennan Center was also the recipient of grants from the Joyce Foundation from 2000 to 2003. President Obama served on the Joyce board from 1994 through 2002.
History of shoddy research
Brennan has a history of questionable research.
The center was at the heart of a national scandal in 2002 after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance act. The attorneys defending McCain-Feingold had reportedly based key portions of their case on research provided by the Brennan Center – research, Discover the Networks notes, that may have been “deliberately faked,” according to Weekly Standard Editor David Tell.
Tell quoted Brennan Center political scientist Jonathan Krasno admitting in his funding proposal to the Pew Charitable Trusts that the purpose of his group’s proposed study on campaign finance was for partisan political reasons.
Wrote Tell: “‘Issue Advocacy: Amassing the Case for Reform,’ dated Feb. 19, 1999, explained that ‘[the purpose of our acquiring the data set is not simply to advance knowledge for its own sake, but to fuel a continuous multi-faceted campaign to propel campaign reform forward.’ Dispassionate academic inquiry was so alien to the spirit of the thing that Brennan promised to suspend its work midstream, pre-publication, if the numbers turned out wrong. ‘Whether we proceed to phase two will depend on the judgment of whether the data provide a sufficiently powerful boost to the reform movement.’”
Tell claimed Brennan researchers “deliberately faked” their results.
With additional research by Brenda J. Elliott
Vote fraud alert: One out of five registered Ohio voters is bogus
In hindsight, you tell me....
Human Events Blog:
Vote fraud is no big deal, right? It hardly ever happens. It’s so rare that it’s not even worth discussing. Anyone who claims to take the integrity of our ballots seriously is cynically exploiting phantom fears for the purpose of suppressing the Democrat-loving minority vote.
To keep that silly narrative alive, it’s important not to read the Sunday edition of the Columbus Dispatch, in which readers were informed that “more than one out of every five registered Ohio voters is probably ineligible to vote.”
Furthermore, “in two counties, the number of registered voters actually exceeds the voting age population: Northwestern Ohio’s Wood County shows 109 registered voters for every 100 eligible, while in Lawrence County along the Ohio River it’s a mere 104 registered per 100 eligible.”
31 more counties report over 90 percent voter registration, which is a good 20 percent higher than the national average. The Buckeye State sure is civic-minded! Well, except that 1.6 million of the 7.8 million registered voters in the state haven’t voted in at least four years. So I guess they were civic minded, once upon a time. Never fear – I’m sure plenty of those “inactive” voters will reactivate themselves just in time for Barack Obama’s re-election.
You might think these astonishing statistics indicate a crisis-level voter registration problem requiring immediate attention, particularly since this is 2012, not 1912, and modern technology gives us extremely potent tools for accurately managing massive amounts of data. But Attorney General Eric Holder disagrees. Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted sent Holder a letter back in February, warning that “common sense says that the odds of voter fraud increase the longer these ineligible voters are allowed to populate our rolls… I simply cannot accept that.” Husted said existing federal regulations “limit Ohio’s ability to remove ineligible names, thereby increasing the chance for voter fraud.”
No one from the Justice Department ever responded. Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, which called Ohio’s voter registration train wreck to Husted’s attention, is now suing him for failing to take action, beyond issuing a “directive” to remove ineligible voters that Judicial Watch describes as “all bark and no bite,” since there is no evidence that anything was actually done.
Judicial Watch has already filed a similar lawsuit against the State of Indiana, and says other states with disturbing levels of ineligible registered voters include Mississippi, Iowa, Missouri, Texas, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Florida, Alabama, California, and Colorado. Florida’s struggle to clean up its rolls, in the face of active hostility from Eric Holder’s Justice Department, has already made headlines.
Nationwide, the Pew Center for the States estimates about 24 million ineligible voter registrations, including “more than 1.8 million dead people listed as voters; about 2.75 million with voter registrations in more than one state; and about 12 million voter records with incorrect addresses, meaning either the voters moved or errors in the information make it unlikely any mailings can reach them.”
The National Voter Registration Act includes provisions “to ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained,” but somehow that part of the NVRA doesn’t seem to count. It’s painfully obvious that we don’t have accurate and current voter registration – not even by the standards of the early Twentieth Century, let alone the early Twenty-First – but the only parts of the NVRA we ever hear cited are the passages that can be used as roadblocks against cleaning up the rolls, or keeping fraudsters away from the polls.
Without solid voter identification laws, every one of these phony registered voters presents an opportunity for fraud – and of course, Eric Holder is dedicated, above almost every other consideration, to blocking voter ID laws. And vote fraud on this scale is not a mess that can be cleaned up after the election. If a candidate wins a tough swing state like Ohio by, let us say, 5000 votes, and it is later discovered that 6000 false votes were cast in the election, the Presidency is not going to be taken away and given to the defrauded opponent. It’s not even like one of those sports scores that picks up an asterisk due to questionable circumstances. It won’t matter at all… except as another data point to be erased from the public mind, when vote fraud defenders crank up the machinery of fear and ignorance for the 2014 midterms and 2016 presidential campaign. And no one on the Left will express a single moment’s remorse for the legal voters who were disenfranchised by stolen ballots. They won’t have names and faces; no one will be paraded through media interviews to complain about the theft of his or her vote in a historic election.
Vote fraud must be prevented, not investigated after the fact. There is absolutely no logical reason for a computerized society to tolerate thousands of ineligible voters on its rolls. The state of Ohio is not a third-world banana republic. At least, it’s not supposed to be one. The sacrifice of national pride, and even self-respect, required to meekly accept counties with 110 percent voter registration is astonishing.
Human Events Blog:
Vote fraud is no big deal, right? It hardly ever happens. It’s so rare that it’s not even worth discussing. Anyone who claims to take the integrity of our ballots seriously is cynically exploiting phantom fears for the purpose of suppressing the Democrat-loving minority vote.
To keep that silly narrative alive, it’s important not to read the Sunday edition of the Columbus Dispatch, in which readers were informed that “more than one out of every five registered Ohio voters is probably ineligible to vote.”
Furthermore, “in two counties, the number of registered voters actually exceeds the voting age population: Northwestern Ohio’s Wood County shows 109 registered voters for every 100 eligible, while in Lawrence County along the Ohio River it’s a mere 104 registered per 100 eligible.”
31 more counties report over 90 percent voter registration, which is a good 20 percent higher than the national average. The Buckeye State sure is civic-minded! Well, except that 1.6 million of the 7.8 million registered voters in the state haven’t voted in at least four years. So I guess they were civic minded, once upon a time. Never fear – I’m sure plenty of those “inactive” voters will reactivate themselves just in time for Barack Obama’s re-election.
You might think these astonishing statistics indicate a crisis-level voter registration problem requiring immediate attention, particularly since this is 2012, not 1912, and modern technology gives us extremely potent tools for accurately managing massive amounts of data. But Attorney General Eric Holder disagrees. Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted sent Holder a letter back in February, warning that “common sense says that the odds of voter fraud increase the longer these ineligible voters are allowed to populate our rolls… I simply cannot accept that.” Husted said existing federal regulations “limit Ohio’s ability to remove ineligible names, thereby increasing the chance for voter fraud.”
No one from the Justice Department ever responded. Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, which called Ohio’s voter registration train wreck to Husted’s attention, is now suing him for failing to take action, beyond issuing a “directive” to remove ineligible voters that Judicial Watch describes as “all bark and no bite,” since there is no evidence that anything was actually done.
Judicial Watch has already filed a similar lawsuit against the State of Indiana, and says other states with disturbing levels of ineligible registered voters include Mississippi, Iowa, Missouri, Texas, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Florida, Alabama, California, and Colorado. Florida’s struggle to clean up its rolls, in the face of active hostility from Eric Holder’s Justice Department, has already made headlines.
Nationwide, the Pew Center for the States estimates about 24 million ineligible voter registrations, including “more than 1.8 million dead people listed as voters; about 2.75 million with voter registrations in more than one state; and about 12 million voter records with incorrect addresses, meaning either the voters moved or errors in the information make it unlikely any mailings can reach them.”
The National Voter Registration Act includes provisions “to ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained,” but somehow that part of the NVRA doesn’t seem to count. It’s painfully obvious that we don’t have accurate and current voter registration – not even by the standards of the early Twentieth Century, let alone the early Twenty-First – but the only parts of the NVRA we ever hear cited are the passages that can be used as roadblocks against cleaning up the rolls, or keeping fraudsters away from the polls.
Without solid voter identification laws, every one of these phony registered voters presents an opportunity for fraud – and of course, Eric Holder is dedicated, above almost every other consideration, to blocking voter ID laws. And vote fraud on this scale is not a mess that can be cleaned up after the election. If a candidate wins a tough swing state like Ohio by, let us say, 5000 votes, and it is later discovered that 6000 false votes were cast in the election, the Presidency is not going to be taken away and given to the defrauded opponent. It’s not even like one of those sports scores that picks up an asterisk due to questionable circumstances. It won’t matter at all… except as another data point to be erased from the public mind, when vote fraud defenders crank up the machinery of fear and ignorance for the 2014 midterms and 2016 presidential campaign. And no one on the Left will express a single moment’s remorse for the legal voters who were disenfranchised by stolen ballots. They won’t have names and faces; no one will be paraded through media interviews to complain about the theft of his or her vote in a historic election.
Vote fraud must be prevented, not investigated after the fact. There is absolutely no logical reason for a computerized society to tolerate thousands of ineligible voters on its rolls. The state of Ohio is not a third-world banana republic. At least, it’s not supposed to be one. The sacrifice of national pride, and even self-respect, required to meekly accept counties with 110 percent voter registration is astonishing.
Colorado Counties Have More Voters Than People
11.9.12
(Media Trackers Colorado) - A review of voter registration data for ten counties in Colorado details a pattern of voter bloat inflating registration rolls to numbers larger than the total voting age population.
Using publicly available voter data and comparing it to U.S. Census records reveals the ten counties having a total registration ranging between 104 to 140 percent of the respective populations.
Counties such as Gilpin and Hinsdale have 110 percent of their populations registered to vote. Gilpin County has a total population of 5,441 with 17.4% of the population below the voting age, making the highest possible number of registered voters 4,494.
Currently Gilpin County has 4909 registered voters. Hinsdale County has a total population of 830 with 20% of the population below the voting age, making the highest possible number of registered voters 664. At 110 percent registration, that means that there are 515 excess voter registrations in Gilpin county and 68 excess registrations for Hinsdale.
When Media Trackers requested comment on the voter bloat in Gilpin county, Chief Deputy Gail Maxwell explained that “This is just a reminder Gilpin is a Gaming Community. The voters come and go!” While these voters come and go, they manage to turnout to vote.
Records show Gilpin County had 61 percent voter turnout in the 2010 election and Hinsdale County had an astounding 92 percent voter turnout. This is far above the Colorado average turnout of 48 percent, and the national average of 41 percent.
All ten counties investigated by Media Trackers reported voter turnout greater than the national average. Nine out of ten also showed voter turnout well above the Colorado average. Mineral and San Juan counties, which have voter registration numbers of 126 percent and 112 percent respectively, had voter turnout of 96 and 83 percent respectively.
Jackson, Summit, Cheyenne, and Elbert counties have 111, 107, 105, and 104 percent of their population registered to vote, while managing 71, 44, 71, and 63 percent voter turnout.
Rounding out the ten counties looked at by Media Trackers are San Miguel county, which topped the list at 140 percent of the population being registered to vote and 52 percent voter turnout, and Ouray county, which had 119 percent of the population registered to vote and a whopping 74 percent voter turnout.
While Ouray County has a total population of 4,356, with 17.8 percent of the population below the voting age, the county has 4,246 people registered to vote. The highest possible number of voting age residents in the county is 3,581, which is 775 less than the actual registered total.
San Miguel County has a total population of 7,359 with 19.2 percent of the population below the voting age, making the highest possible number of registered voters 5,946. If the census numbers are to be trusted, that results in the possibility of up to 2,390 individuals on the voter rolls who should not be.
Kathleen Erie, the Clerk and Recorder for San Miguel County, preemptively excused the voter bloat when responding to the CORA request from Media Trackers, saying “San Miguel County is a resort community. Many young people come here to work for a season or two and then move on.”
Erie continued by explaining some of the voter bloat was due to senior citizens who “leave during large parts of the year, causing a (non-forwardable) mail ballot not to reach them.”
When Media Trackers asked Michelle Nauer, Clerk and Recorder for Ouray County, for an explanation regarding the enlarged voter rolls, she gave an answer similar to Erie’s. “Ouray has a large snow bird population” Nauer stated, “and residents fly south during the snowiest months, January through April.” Nauer went on to dispute the accuracy of the Census numbers, stating that “most of [her] voters were “counted by the census” in warmer climes, likely Arizona or Texas.”
In a separate analysis done by the Franklin Center, it was found that seventeen of Colorado’s sixty four counties have registration greater than 100 percent of the US Census voting age population.
As seen in the chart above detailing the persistent over registration of Ouray County, the Franklin Center analysis found that there are five counties which have reported greater than 100 percent of the voting age population as registered to vote for all years between 2004 and 2012.
Many of the counties contacted by Media Trackers responded with letters detailing the definitions of different voter classifications, i.e. active and inactive, as well as rules relating to the purging of voter data.
(Media Trackers Colorado) - A review of voter registration data for ten counties in Colorado details a pattern of voter bloat inflating registration rolls to numbers larger than the total voting age population.
Using publicly available voter data and comparing it to U.S. Census records reveals the ten counties having a total registration ranging between 104 to 140 percent of the respective populations.
Counties such as Gilpin and Hinsdale have 110 percent of their populations registered to vote. Gilpin County has a total population of 5,441 with 17.4% of the population below the voting age, making the highest possible number of registered voters 4,494.
Currently Gilpin County has 4909 registered voters. Hinsdale County has a total population of 830 with 20% of the population below the voting age, making the highest possible number of registered voters 664. At 110 percent registration, that means that there are 515 excess voter registrations in Gilpin county and 68 excess registrations for Hinsdale.
When Media Trackers requested comment on the voter bloat in Gilpin county, Chief Deputy Gail Maxwell explained that “This is just a reminder Gilpin is a Gaming Community. The voters come and go!” While these voters come and go, they manage to turnout to vote.
Records show Gilpin County had 61 percent voter turnout in the 2010 election and Hinsdale County had an astounding 92 percent voter turnout. This is far above the Colorado average turnout of 48 percent, and the national average of 41 percent.
All ten counties investigated by Media Trackers reported voter turnout greater than the national average. Nine out of ten also showed voter turnout well above the Colorado average. Mineral and San Juan counties, which have voter registration numbers of 126 percent and 112 percent respectively, had voter turnout of 96 and 83 percent respectively.
Jackson, Summit, Cheyenne, and Elbert counties have 111, 107, 105, and 104 percent of their population registered to vote, while managing 71, 44, 71, and 63 percent voter turnout.
Rounding out the ten counties looked at by Media Trackers are San Miguel county, which topped the list at 140 percent of the population being registered to vote and 52 percent voter turnout, and Ouray county, which had 119 percent of the population registered to vote and a whopping 74 percent voter turnout.
While Ouray County has a total population of 4,356, with 17.8 percent of the population below the voting age, the county has 4,246 people registered to vote. The highest possible number of voting age residents in the county is 3,581, which is 775 less than the actual registered total.
San Miguel County has a total population of 7,359 with 19.2 percent of the population below the voting age, making the highest possible number of registered voters 5,946. If the census numbers are to be trusted, that results in the possibility of up to 2,390 individuals on the voter rolls who should not be.
Kathleen Erie, the Clerk and Recorder for San Miguel County, preemptively excused the voter bloat when responding to the CORA request from Media Trackers, saying “San Miguel County is a resort community. Many young people come here to work for a season or two and then move on.”
Erie continued by explaining some of the voter bloat was due to senior citizens who “leave during large parts of the year, causing a (non-forwardable) mail ballot not to reach them.”
When Media Trackers asked Michelle Nauer, Clerk and Recorder for Ouray County, for an explanation regarding the enlarged voter rolls, she gave an answer similar to Erie’s. “Ouray has a large snow bird population” Nauer stated, “and residents fly south during the snowiest months, January through April.” Nauer went on to dispute the accuracy of the Census numbers, stating that “most of [her] voters were “counted by the census” in warmer climes, likely Arizona or Texas.”
In a separate analysis done by the Franklin Center, it was found that seventeen of Colorado’s sixty four counties have registration greater than 100 percent of the US Census voting age population.
As seen in the chart above detailing the persistent over registration of Ouray County, the Franklin Center analysis found that there are five counties which have reported greater than 100 percent of the voting age population as registered to vote for all years between 2004 and 2012.
Many of the counties contacted by Media Trackers responded with letters detailing the definitions of different voter classifications, i.e. active and inactive, as well as rules relating to the purging of voter data.
VOTE INVESTIGATORS Needed NOW, Swing States
11.9.12
Politijim
From Patriot Alan Vera who needs patriots in WI, OH, PA & VA:
Another Stolen Election???
The popular vote results reported by the respective secretaries of state of the key swing states last night are a little more than suspect. The concession by Mr. Romney and the GOP was, at best, premature. The election results are not official until the party electors meet to vote the electoral votes in each state. There is time to take action.
Election Data Is Highly Suspicious
The University of Colorado Department of Political Science Electoral Vote projection is the most accurate presidential election model in our history. They were the only source that correctly called the 1980 Reagan/Carter results. They have correctly modeled every presidential election since with their projected electoral totals never off by more than 1%.
Their method is not a standard political poll process. They include surveys, but those are only 1 of many variables in a complex algorithm that includes key economic, employment and social measures. They build their models state by state to assure sufficient granularity for top accuracy. It is mathematically possible that statistical error could cause them to incorrectly project ONE state. But it is mathematically impossible for them to incorrectly project more than one. Their 2012 model projected Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia for the Romney/Ryan ticket. The results reported by those secretaries of state were different.
Add to this the survey data showing the Democrat ticket losing support from 2008 among Blacks, Jews, Catholics and Independents, and the results reported for the above-named states are mathematically impossible.
An army of trained poll watchers/election observers kept a lid on fraud in voter registrations and at the ballot boxes in all the key states. While there is no way these volunteers could have stopped 100% of the fraud, all reports are that they kept it at or below “normal” levels. That means that the discrepancies between scientifically generated data and the election results reported were most likely generated behind the scenes under the auspices of the secretaries of state involved.
The George Soros Secretary of State Project
This leads us to an organized program of election corruption underwritten by George Soros.
ACTION NEEDED
Citizen Activists of Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia must immediately contact their respective state GOP party, and (if possible) the slate of GOP electors who were chosen at their state party conventions this past year.
These two groups have legal standing in the respective states to legally challenge the results reported by the Secretary of State. The presidential voting was not for the president/vice president ticket. The voting was for the electors pledged to vote for the ticket in December. Romney/Ryan didn’t lose last night. The electors pledged to them in each of the key states were robbed of their election.
There’s time to have a recount observed by trained election observers and representatives of the parties. There’s time to get a look at the actual results of the voting in each of the key states.
Somebody from each state needs to step forward and run with this. Let me know if you need any advice.
HOOAH!
(Please contact Alan via the PolitiJim contact page)
Politijim
From Patriot Alan Vera who needs patriots in WI, OH, PA & VA:
The popular vote results reported by the respective secretaries of state of the key swing states last night are a little more than suspect. The concession by Mr. Romney and the GOP was, at best, premature. The election results are not official until the party electors meet to vote the electoral votes in each state. There is time to take action.
Election Data Is Highly Suspicious
The University of Colorado Department of Political Science Electoral Vote projection is the most accurate presidential election model in our history. They were the only source that correctly called the 1980 Reagan/Carter results. They have correctly modeled every presidential election since with their projected electoral totals never off by more than 1%.
Their method is not a standard political poll process. They include surveys, but those are only 1 of many variables in a complex algorithm that includes key economic, employment and social measures. They build their models state by state to assure sufficient granularity for top accuracy. It is mathematically possible that statistical error could cause them to incorrectly project ONE state. But it is mathematically impossible for them to incorrectly project more than one. Their 2012 model projected Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia for the Romney/Ryan ticket. The results reported by those secretaries of state were different.
Add to this the survey data showing the Democrat ticket losing support from 2008 among Blacks, Jews, Catholics and Independents, and the results reported for the above-named states are mathematically impossible.
An army of trained poll watchers/election observers kept a lid on fraud in voter registrations and at the ballot boxes in all the key states. While there is no way these volunteers could have stopped 100% of the fraud, all reports are that they kept it at or below “normal” levels. That means that the discrepancies between scientifically generated data and the election results reported were most likely generated behind the scenes under the auspices of the secretaries of state involved.
The George Soros Secretary of State Project
This leads us to an organized program of election corruption underwritten by George Soros.
ACTION NEEDED
Citizen Activists of Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia must immediately contact their respective state GOP party, and (if possible) the slate of GOP electors who were chosen at their state party conventions this past year.
These two groups have legal standing in the respective states to legally challenge the results reported by the Secretary of State. The presidential voting was not for the president/vice president ticket. The voting was for the electors pledged to vote for the ticket in December. Romney/Ryan didn’t lose last night. The electors pledged to them in each of the key states were robbed of their election.
There’s time to have a recount observed by trained election observers and representatives of the parties. There’s time to get a look at the actual results of the voting in each of the key states.
Somebody from each state needs to step forward and run with this. Let me know if you need any advice.
HOOAH!
(Please contact Alan via the PolitiJim contact page)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)