GBTV - Where the Truth Lives

Election Season 2014

And it has brought us to this trainwreck called ObamaCare and we have bankrupted our kids and grandkids!

We are now headed into the 2014 Election Season and common sense and conservatism are on the rise. Please stand-up and be counted!

Reading Collusion: How the Media Stole the 2012 Election is a great place to start!

The Founding Father's Real Reason for the Second Amendment

And remember the words of Thomas Jefferson "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." See Video of Suzanna Gratia-Hupp’s Congressional Testimony: What the Second Amendment is REALLY For, below (u-tube HERE).

The Leaders Are Here... Palin, Cruz, Lee, Paul, Chaffetz....

T'S A WONDERFUL LIFE

Can You Really Still Believe That None of These People Would Have Done a Better Job???

Bloggers' Rights at EFF

SIGN THE PETITION TODAY...

Showing posts with label Secretaries of State. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Secretaries of State. Show all posts

Friday, January 31, 2014

Former Clinton WH Counsel Lanny Davis Struggles To List Hillary’s Achievements At State Dept

featured-img

Audio: Lanny Davis Struggles to come up with any Hillary Clinton Accomplishment at State Department.

AskMarion:

In an interview with Hugh Hewitt, Former Clinton White House Counsel and spin doctor Lanny Davis had a hard time listing Hillary’s achievement while Secretary of State:

HH: If I ever get in serious, serious trouble, I think I’m going to try and find Lanny Davis. Now only is he a friend of my friend, Michael Medved, and a friend of my friend, Mark Gearan. He is widely regarded as one of the great spin masters of Washington, D.C. He has brand new book out called Crisis Tales: Five Rules For Coping With Crises In Business, Politics And Life. Lanny Davis, welcome back to the Hugh Hewitt Show, great to talk to you.

LD: I love being on your show, Hugh. And I hope you never need my services, but thank you.

HH: Well, there are a couple of things in here. First of all, selling the planes to Pakistan when you came up with the nine words, the money or the planes, what’s fair is fair, that’s a beautiful chapter, but I still don’t want to sell planes to Pakistan. I mean, that was, I kept saying Lanny, you’re selling me. I don’t want them. It’s not fair. They’re running the Taliban, so what’s fair? Did that work?

LD: Well, first of all, this is way back when, so you’re dating me, and I have to date myself. So this is when Benazir Bhutto was the small d democrat, and elected by a popular landslide and ran a small d democracy with secular Islamic views. That was the ideal Islamic democracy in the world, Turkey being at the time another example. So this is when Pakistan was truly our friend and Benazir Bhutto was an inspirational leader. And we owed Pakistan, literally owed Pakistan $600 million dollars. We had their money, we had their planes, and they wanted one or the other back, and we were stuck and couldn’t give either one back. And that’s when I helped Prime Minister Bhutto with President Clinton.

HH: It’s a fascinating story. We didn’t know at the time that the ISI was helping the Taliban become our nightmare, so your hands are clean on that. But it’s a fascinating story. I also loved your mix up with Garry Trudeau, your fellow Yalie, over the misapplication of facts with regards to the Ivory Coast incident, covered in great detail. But I love your takeaway. Don’t represent yourself.

LD: My punch line is that Garry Trudeau had very good company in ignoring the facts that ultimately came out, which is that I was helping the State Department and the President of the United States get this thug out of the trenches in the Ivory Coast, and save lives. But I couldn’t tell everybody what I was doing, because it was covert. So I violated my transparency rule. I paid the penalty and I had a fool for a client, namely me.

HH: Well, Crisis Tales is full of good stuff, and I recommend it to anyone. But now I want your crisis advice for an old client of yours. Former Secretary of State Clinton brought up Benghazi sua sponte yesterday. That means on her own, for the benefit of the Steelers fans. And it raised more questions than it answered. When does she need to sit down and give us the specifics of what she was doing that night, where she went, and why she never called back Mr. Hicks?

LD: Well, first of all, I’m not sure Mr. Hicks ever called her. That’s not a fact. It’s actually not true that he ever called her. And secondly, she’s done that. She’s testified in front of two Congressional committees, and I’m sure she’d be willing to do it again and again and again, because the most decisive comment she made is when she was accused of a systemic failure in her own department by a panel that she appointed. Ambassador Pickering, a Republican administration senior official at the State Department and ambassador for a Republican president, Bush I, and Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, neither one of them exactly partisans, investigated what happened in Benghazi, and found that the State Department had a systemic failure of leadership at the mid-levels, that communications did not occur very well, and she accepted personal responsibility in all 64 recommendations for change. So…

HH: But Lanny, neither the Ambassador nor the Admiral spoke to her personally under oath, and she did in fact talk with Mr. Hicks. That’s under oath and testified to. She talked to him at 2am in the morning on a conference call, and she never called him back. I’m curious if you would recommend to her that she sit down for a one hour with Jake Tapper, or with Bret Baier, or with a serious journalist, not Andrea Mitchell, not someone who will lie down and sweep the ground before she walks on it, but a serious, probing question about why she ran away, because she ran away that night.

LD: Well, I don’t believe she ran away, but we shouldn’t debate things we are both uncertain of. Let’s both agree that this is an issue she has to address, will address. My philosophy is the more information out, the better for her. And at some point, I certainly agree with you she’ll have to retell the story. I think we have a difference of opinion whether she already has, but I certainly agree with your premise that as long as these questions are nagging, the ultimate solution, as I always say in my book, is tell it all, tell it early, tell it yourself. She’s very, very sorry about the loss of her friend. She’s taken responsibility, and I think she ultimately will follow even your advice, Hugh.

HH: Well, I like your advice. Tell it all, tell it early, tell it yourself. She has not told it all. She hasn’t told it early. What she has said, she’s used other people to do so. But what about, who would you recommend she sit down with for like a Chris Christie longest day press conference? He did two hours. Should she do the same sort of thing, Lanny Davis?

LD: Well, first of all, we’re just going to have to disagree in respect to have differences of opinion with being as to whether she already has answered all the questions. But I think she ultimately will have to do it again if she decides to run for president, and I have no idea who she should sit down with. I kind of laughed in the middle of your mentioning Andrea Mitchell, because the last time I saw Andrea Mitchell, she was extremely tough on the Clinton White House. But she’s got to sit down with a credible journalist and answer all questions if she wants to run for president. Not just Benghazi, but your life is transparent. It’s pretty tough out there as Chris Christie has discovered. I’m not satisfied with Chris Christie’s explanation. He could have spent four more hours, and he still hasn’t answered the basic question why did you sit and watch that traffic jam and didn’t pick up the phone and call your buddy at the Port Authority and say what the heck is going on here?

HH: And that, by the way, America, that was…

LD: He’s never answered that question.

HH: That was a perfect bit of Lanny Davis diversion. That was eloquent, actually. He knows I’m burrowing in on Hillary, and so he brings up Chris Christie and thinks it’s like shouting squirrel. But Lanny, I’ve got to go back. Jake Tapper said ten minutes ago we don’t know what she did that night. Nobody knows what she did after the 2am call with Hicks. Don’t we need a timeline? Don’t we deserve to know what the woman in charge of the State Department under siege actually did, because I think she ran away, and she has never answered with specificity and particularity what she did that night.

LD: So it looks like you just changed the topic from my Chris Christie point, but the answer is I’ve already given, I already gave you the answer, Hugh. So I don’t know if I can…

HH: All right. Let me ask…

LD: …more time, which is at some point, at some point, if she runs for president, Benghazi and every other issue she’s being criticized for, and I happen to believe that there are only a handful of people that hold Benghazi against her. I don’t think that that’s a serious political issue for her.

HH: Okay, then give me one more thing.

LD: But she’s got to do it. She’s got to do it if she runs for president. And she knows that.

HH: All right, one question, you’ve got a minute. Summarize for me what she accomplished as Secretary of State.

LD: Well, the biggest thing of all is goodwill around the world, which is what secretaries of State do.

HH: Like in Syria…

LD: I don’t know what any secretary of State…

HH: …and Egypt and Libya?

LD: I don’t know, well, Libya and certainly the intervention in Libya and getting rid of Qaddafi, you would say that’s a pretty good achievement for the President. But these are presidential achievements with a partnership of the secretary of State. What do secretaries of State do? For example, she was very instrumental in the details of the Iranian sanctions program, which has produced, apparently, some results. I’m very skeptical about this deal in Iran on the nuclear weaponry. But the credit she deserves on this sanctions program, which literally was her program in the State Department to enforce, but in partnership with Barack Obama.

HH: So her achievement is that…

LD: But this doesn’t change the question about the secretary of State having achievement. This is a secretary of State is the most popular woman in the world and restored relations with everyone in the world.

HH: All right, Lanny, we’re out of time, but your achievement is one that’s been swept away by the President.

End of interview.

So I Lied

Friday, March 22, 2013

Who Is That With Jane Fonda? - A Slap in the Face to Every Viet Nam Vet!!

Kerry-Fonda-Anti-War-Rally

Who Is That With Hanoi Jane?

Gee, who is that guy standing next to Hanoi Jane  at an anti-war protest rally back in the 70s?  Why it's none  other than our new Secretary of State. Isn't that a slap in the face to every Viet Nam Vet… to every American Veteran?!?

REMEMBERING: Discovered papers: Hanoi Directed Kerry… And Now He ‘Is’ Secretary of State??

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Hillary Clinton Aide Tells Reporter To “F _ck Off” And “Have A Good Life”

BuzzFeed Politics:

As the State Department's story about what happened in Benghazi crumbles, Clinton's personal spokesperson, Philippe Reines, loses his temper. “Have a good day. And by good day I mean Fuck Off.”

Clinton and Reines in China in 2010. Source: farm5.staticflickr.com

Posted Sep 24, 2012 1:11pm EDT

On Sunday morning, BuzzFeed correspondent Michael Hastings emailed Philippe Reines, Hillary Clinton's longtime aide and personal spokesman at the State Department, asking a series of pointed questions about State's handling of the Benghazi fiasco, and Reines' over-the-top attack on CNN. The emails quickly got personal, with Reines calling Hastings an "unmitigated asshole" before an exchange of harsh words on both sides.

The email chain concluded with Reines writing that Hastings should "Fuck Off" and "Have a good life."

The full exchange (with one typo fixed) is below.

From: Michael Hastings
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 10:32 AM
To: Reines, Philippe I
Subject: Request for comment

Hey Philippe:

A few quick questions for you. Why didn't the State Department search the consulate and find AMB Steven's diary first? What other potential valuable intelligence was left behind that could have been picked up by apparently anyone searching the grounds? Was any classified or top secret material also left? Do you still feel that there was adequate security at the compound, considering it was not only overrun but sensitive personal effects and possibly other intelligence remained out for anyone passing through to pick up? Your statement on CNN sounded pretty defensive--do you think it's the media's responsibility to help secure State Department assets overseas after they've been attacked?

Let me know if you have a second.Michael

______________________________________
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Reines, Philippe I wrote:

Good morning Michael

I'm adding my colleague Toria Nuland who I believe you know. She has addressed much of your questions below during her daily press briefings, so I'll let her weigh in to remind you of what's already been thoroughly answered. As far as the tone of my email, I think you're misreading mine as much as I'm misreading yours as being needlessly antagonistic.

But on your questions pertaining to CNN's handling of the diary:

• You know that all USG personnel were evacuated from Benghazi after the attack. So I'm not sure why you're asking why State didn't find the diary first.

• On material, I'll let Toria reiterate, but the answer is no. Though you might want to ask CNN if they took anything else from the crime scene that they haven't yet told anyone about.

• In terms of the media's responsibility, I'll start with the outlandish statement that I believe the media does have responsibilities. Your question seems to imply they have none and any expectation of responsible behavior is too much to ask. To be specific:I believe CNN had the responsibility to act as human beings and be sensitive to their loss when they first approached the family.

I believe CNN had a responsibility to not make promises to the family it would not keep.

If that's too much to ask, I believe CNN had at the very least a responsibility to make their intentions on the use of Chris's diary clear to the family from the outset.

I believe CNN had a responsibility to not deceive its own viewers for more than 48 hours on the source of their reporting, using convoluted attribution they themselves had to clarify, before admitting it was the diary they were relying on.

I believe that when they finally did admit to using Chris's diary, they had a responsibility to their viewers and to the family to explain why they broke their pledge.

I believe that many within CNN agree with everything I'm saying.

More than anything else, I believe that CNN - since they had already read every word of the diary before calling the family on Friday the 14th, the day Chris's remains were returned home - had all the information they needed at that point to make an editorial decision on whether the contents of the diary compelled them to report on it. I believe the time to invoke their standards to justify using the diary came six days late. I believe that CNN, if they felt strongly that they had an obligation to use the diary should never have presented the family with a choice in the first place that they'd later disregard.

I don't believe that CNN should get credit for issuing a flimsy confession only when caught with their hands in the cookie jar. I believe the statement CNN issued late last night, 24 hours after Anderson Cooper's ill-conceived statement on air, basically says they agreed not to use it until they didn't feel like it anymore, and only admitted to it when they were about to be caught. I don't believe that's much of a profile in courage.

Lastly, I believe that you of all people, after famously being accused of violating agreed upon ground rules and questionable sourcing, would agree that it's important for a news organization to maintain its own integrity if it is to be trusted. That begins with keeping its word. If you can't manage that, then don't give it.

I realize that the way this works is that you only you get to ask me questions, but I have one for you: if you were in Benghazi, went to the scene of the attack, found the ambassador's diary, read every word of it, would you have called them and asked their permission to use it, then when you weren't granted that permission agree that you wouldn't use it in any way, and then a few days later just change your mind?

If the answer is yes, then you obviously agree that CNN handled this perfectly fine.

If the answer is no, if you would have decided its contents demanded reporting immediately, how would you have handled this differently then CNN?

And you should feel free to use every word above, in its entirety. Though I suspect you won't.

Philippe

______________________________________
From: Michael Hastings
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 12:04 PM
To: Reines, Philippe I Cc: Nuland, Victoria J
Subject: Re: Request for comment

Philippe:

Thanks for getting back to me. No, you read my email correctly--I found your statement to CNN offensive.

From my perspective, the scandal here is that the State Department had such inadequate security procedures in place that four Americans were killed. And then the Ambassador's diary--and who knows what else--was left behind for anyone to pick up. Thankfully, it was CNN--and not Al Qaeda or some other militia--that found it and was able to return it to the family. That CNN used portions of the material in the diary they found at the scene--material that appears to contradict the official version of events that State/WH has been putting out--is completely in line with practices of good journalism.

I don't know how involved Arwa Damon has been in this. But for what it's worth, Arwa is one of the best war correspondents working today. She's consistently risked her life to get these stories, and to find out what actually happens in these conflict zones.I do agree that the media has lots of responsibilities, and CNN fulfilled its responsibility by returning the diary while still managing to inform the American public of newsworthy information. So it's unfortunate that you are trying to make a scapegoat out of CNN. That State was forced to flee Benghazi--again, because of such inadequate security, leaving behind all sorts of sensitive information--tells us more about DoS than CNN.

The misinformation here seems largely to be coming from State and the administration. The defense that the administration has offered that there was no intelligence warning of an attack is weak. If there was no intel, then clearly the CIA and other intel agents stationed in Benghazi weren't doing their jobs well. If there was intel, then we have some kind of cover-up--whether out of incompetence or ass covering before the election or just the trauma of losing four good men, it's hard for me to say at this point.

All the best,

Michael

______________________________________
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Reines, Philippe I wrote:

Why do you bother to ask questions you've already decided you know the answers to?

______________________________________
From: Michael Hastings
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 12:50 PM
To: Reines, Philippe I Cc: Nuland, Victoria J
Subject: Re: Request for comment

Why don't you give answers that aren't bullshit for a change?

______________________________________
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Reines, Philippe I wrote:
I now understand why the official investigation by the Department of the Defense as reported by The Army Times The Washington Post concluded beyond a doubt that you're an unmitigated asshole.

How's that for a non-bullshit response?

Now that we've gotten that out of our systems, have a good day.

And by good day, I mean Fuck Off

______________________________________
From: Michael Hastings
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 01:40 PM
To: Reines, Philippe I Cc: Nuland, Victoria J
Subject: Re: Request for comment

Hah--I now understand what women say about you, too! Any new complaints against you lately?

______________________________________
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Reines, Philippe I wrote:

Talk about bullshit - answer me this: Do you only traffic in lies, or are you on the ground floor of creating them?

And since Fuck Off wasn't clear enough, I'm done with you. Inside of 5 minutes when I can log into my desktop, you'll be designated as Junk Mail.

Have a good life Michael.

______________________________________
From: Michael Hastings
Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: Request for comment
To: "Reines, Philippe I" Cc: "Nuland, Victoria J"

I'll take that as a non-denial denial.

All the best,

Michael

Related:

Video: Hillary Clinton Says Burmese Politicians Learned Democracy From "The West Wing"

Libya Threatens Clinton's Legacy — And State Does Damage Control

Colonel: Hillary Made Decision Not to Post Marines at Benghazi

Hillary Clinton, the Law of Karma, and Shattered Dreams

All Starting to Unravel for Obama… and Hillary

No Marines for Libyan Ambassador, Full Security Detail for Valerie Jarrett Vacation

REPORT: Obama administration was warned about attacks, did nothing

Body of lies from Benghazi to Barack — Comprehensive investigative report

Video: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Hussein Obama are so busy apologizing because they agreed to UN Resolution 16/18

Winston Churchill once said, “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last…

U.S. Embassy Attacked: CNN Breaking News @ 14:06 EDST on 9/11, From Egypt… Then Libya, No Comments From Obama – Updated

Manifesto Puts Hillary’s Deputy Chief In Middle Of Muslim Plot – Please Read more:

 Final UN Arms Trade Treaty Disarms America With Clinton’s Signature  -  Waiting For The ‘Hammer To Fall’ – U.N. Small Arms Treaty Passes During Second Session…  But remember… CFR Says Don’t Worry About Hillary’s Small Arms Treaty

Alert: Hillary Clinton Deputy Chief of Staff Tied to Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda

Breaking Hillaryland News: New Evidence Shows Hillary a Mastermind Behind Gunwalker as Her Welcome in Egypt Not So Good

Obama, Clinton Selling Out U.S. Sovereignty In Secret

And Just when you think it can’t get much worse:

Monica Lewinsky Is Back - Gets Bill and Hillary Clinton into Big Trouble Again

Yet Obama Sends These Two Clowns to Represent Him and Us at the UN with the Leaders of the World Including Those from the Middle East… Really? Feeling Safe??

EU Times:

World-famous mistress of former U.S. President Bill Clinton’s Monica Lewinsky decided to make some more money on her controversial past. Lewinsky will write memoires. The former White House trainee negotiates the details of her book with major publishers.

Reportedly, the forgotten sex scandal star has already requested $12 million for her confessions, including those about her relationship with Clinton. Many believe that her story is not worth the money. However, Lewinsky has not signed the deal, although several publishers are interested in the publication of the book.

Meanwhile, American journalists try to show as much humor as they can in their comments about the Lewinsky confessions, BFM.Ru reports. TJ Walker, a famous columnist with Forbes and The Wall Street Journal tried to guess what the new book was going to be about: “What is it? A time capsule? What time is it? 1998? It’s been 14 years since we had to look at this woman day after day. She got her millions from that. She had her Barbara Walters sit-down. And now she is going to write another book. What in the world is she going to say in it? Is it – “nobody has given a damn about me for 14 years?” Second chapter: “I am an idiot. I’ve never done anything interesting in my entire life other than fooling around with the president.” Chapter Three: “I’ve done a handbag campaign and a bunch of other things, but they all were a failure because everyone thought of me as that one thing.”

Monica has not confirmed her plans about the memories yet, but her friends told reporters what her new book could be about. According to one of them, she can share what she knows about Bill’s insatiable desires for threesomes, orgies and sex toys of all kinds, RBC says.

The president’s ex-lover recalled how he spoke disparagingly of his wife, calling her a “cold fish” and making fun of her “non-existent sex life.” Bill Clinton also suggested that Hillary had also cheated on him.

Rumor has it that Hillary Clinton knows about Lewinsky’s plans and is furious about it, Express Gazeta wrote. If the book is ever published, the sitting secretary of state will hardly ever become president.

Of course the possibility of a Hillary Clinton presidency is all but gone now, anyway, now that Americans realize that it was Hillary who made the decision not to send Marines to our Consulate in Benghazi Libya that resulted in the murder and torture of our Ambassador Christopher Stevens and 3 additional Americans, added to by 9-days of lies by Hillary herself, the State Department and the White House about the cause of the events in Egypt, the terror attack on American soil (our Consulate) in Libya and throughout the Middle East and much of the world.

Related:

Bill, Ted, Antonio, Joe, Debbie and Friends Take Us All to an Alternative Universe….

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

LAS VEGAS: Proposed regulation -- illegal aliens right to vote! - Sovereignty Alert

ALERT:  LAS VEGAS: Proposed regulation -- illegal aliens right to vote!

And let us not forget George Soros Eye’d the State Secretaries to gain control of the count…

VERY IMPORTANT: Dec 29 at 3PM - Proposed Regulation - R111-11 and R124-11  -  Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 07:06:44 –0600

Dec 29 at 3PM - Proposed Regulation - R111-11 and R124-11 Thursday, December 29, 2011, 3:00 PM  at the Grant Sawyer Building - 555 E. Washington Ave., Las Vegas, NV

80 Patriots attended December 23 hearing. Please attend this one as well. Thank you so much for your time and effort.

Proposed Regulation of the Secretary of State
LCB File # R124-11 and R111-11

http://nvsos.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?...

The goal of this proposed election rules and regulation is only one: give illegal aliens the right to vote.

The real intention is buried on Section 9 - 3 - (h) page 10:
(h) A current and valid document issued by a governmental agency;
ITIN is a valid document issued by a governmental agency.
ITIN - Please check page 12 of the IRS Form 1040 -
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040.pdf

The sub-committee (please replace the word AT to @)
Senator Mo Denis, Chair D Moises.
DenisATsen.state.nv.us
702 657 6857

Senator David R. Parks D
David.ParksATsen.state.nv.us
702 736 692

Senator Michael Roberson R
Michael.RobersonATsen.state.nv.us
702 612 6929

Assemblywoman Teresa Benitez-Thompson D
tbenitezthompsonATasm.state.nv.us
775 247 7665

Assemblywoman Marilyn Kirkpatrick D
mkirkpatrickATasm.state.nv.us
775 655 0332

Assemblyman Lynn D. Stewart R
lstewartATasm.state.nv.us
702 370 2185

Please read also how illegals are buying houses, getting thousand of dollars from the IRS, getting driver license and everything else. Now, if this election regulation pass, illegals will have the right to vote.

The IRSs Dirty Little Secret the Earned Income Tax Credit and Illegal Aliens
http://teapartywest.com/?p=4250

TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION
http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/...

Illegal, but Not Undocumented: Identity Theft, Document Fraud, and Illegal Employment
http://www.cis.org/IdentityThef

How we can approach Identification:

R124-11 IDENTIFICATION

Insert the bolded words into Section 9.1 as shown below. It is impossible to establish the identification of a potential voter without a photograph. Without a government issued photo ID the voting process is subject to fraud. Sec.9.1 would then properly read The Secretary of State interprets official identification to mean a government-issued photo ID, or otherwise official, article or combination of articles, which establishes both the identity, by photograph, and residence of a person submitting an application to register to vote.

The draft R124.11 Sec. 9.2 (j) must be stricken. This gives too much discretion to the election board (poll workers). Are they allowed to accept an ID that is home made or one from Sam’s Club or Costco?

Sec.9.3. At the beginning of this section please enter the words Once the identity of the voter has been established by photo ID the following articles

Add Subsection (k) to Sec.9.3. Subsection (k) is to read No document that has any indication that the potential voter is not a U.S. citizen can be used to establish identity or residency. For example, a government issued document that has an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) shall not be used to establish identity or residency.

Soros Eyes Secretaries

Voter Fraud – Hacking Democracy

Thursday, December 22, 2011

Voter Fraud - Hacking Democracy

HBO Documentary: Hacking Democracy - Full Length Documentary

Video:  Hacking Democracy

Watch and save the documentary above. Share it with your friends. Vote fraud is epidemic in the United States
Articles

BLACK BOX VOTING, THE GO -TO RESOURCE FOR CURRENT ELECTION FRAUD.

A House Without Doors - Vote Fraud in America

Tags:

Rather: Realistically, could the fix be put on a national election?

Strauss: Get me a job with the company that writes the software for this program. [Strauss was referring to the most common computer program in use.] Then I'd have access to one third of the votes. Is that enough to fix a general election?

In an earlier clip during this CBS interview, Strauss had dropped this bombshell: "When it comes to computerized elections, there are no safeguards. It's not a door without locks, it's a house without doors."

Voter Fraud for the Completer Idiot

A Doonesbury cartoon on a recent Sunday contained a distillation of a current talking point among progressives: "Question: What fraud? Voter fraud is close to non-existent!"

Progressives think that if they make the above claim as though it were an indisputable fact, it will become a fact. All they have to do is repeat the claim over and over again until it sticks. To wit:

An editorialist for The New York Times asserts: "There is almost no voting fraud in America."

At the Center for American Progress, Eric Alterman writes: "Members of the mainstream media often give too much credence to empty claims of 'voter fraud.'"

At the Brennan Center for Justice, we read: "Allegations of widespread fraud by malevolent voters are easy to make, but often prove to be inflated or inaccurate."

In The Nation, left-wing firebrand Katrina Vanden Heuvel alleges: "Voter fraud -- the impersonation of a voter by another person -- is extremely rare in the United States."

An uncouth gal for Daily Kos writes: "Some [Republicans] acknowledge that voter fraud is essentially non-existent." (Who are these Republicans?)

At Mother Jones, we read: "While Republicans have argued such rules are necessary to combat 'voter fraud,' examples of the kind of in-person voter fraud that might be curbed by such requirements are miniscule."

At Slate we read: "Large-scale, coordinated vote stealing doesn't happen."

A lady at Think Progress writes: "Like conservative state legislatures across the country, Maine Republicans have been pushing a Voter ID law, ostensibly to prevent non-existent voter fraud." (Italics added.)

A blogger at Media Matters writes: "Instances of actual voter fraud are very rare."

(There may be a subliminal message in there somewhere.)

The above claims are as absurd as a big-city mayor claiming that last night, no cases of wife-beating occurred in his fair city because, well, no one reported any to the police.

Question: how is a poll worker manning a voting station supposed to know that a voter checking in to vote is about to commit voter fraud -- if that voter is registered?

If the voter's name is on the signature roster, the poll worker must assume that the registrar has thoroughly vetted him and that he is properly registered. What's a poll worker supposed to do if a "suspicious-looking" voter shows his ID (if even required in the state) and is on the list? The poll worker hasn't the means to challenge a voter's registration, nor the time. Besides, that's not his job. To perform his job, the poll worker must depend on the voter registration system.

One way in which voter fraud (illegal voting) is made possible is by the registration of people who aren't eligible to vote. Such registrations are due to fraud (or to error) committed by registrants and even by registrars. But the most important factor contributing to corrupted voter registries is the voter registration system itself.

Voter registration in America is backward and not worthy of a great nation. And despite the fact that registration involves very little information, registrars do not verify the most important requirement for voting in America -- citizenship. The Brennan Center reports:

At least 10 states ... introduced legislation that would require proof of citizenship to register or vote. ... Previously, the only state to attempt to require proof of citizenship was Arizona. That law has been enjoined by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which has recently heard that appeal en banc.

So the nation's most progressive circuit court will decide whether Arizonans must share their birthright with foreigners. Immigration Reform Law Institute concludes:

IRLI believes the final outcome of this case will likely define the extent to which states are allowed to prevent non-citizens from being added to their voter rolls. A final decision could affect other states that have enacted laws which require proof of eligibility to vote at registration. Those states have determined that preventing unauthorized voting is in their respective state's interest.

Question: if the final outcome of this case does go in Arizona's favor, will the state's method for verifying the citizenship of voter registrants be sufficient? That is, will Arizona voter registries contain citizens only?

Given the mechanisms of our election systems, voter fraud can be impossible to detect. And if it can't be detected, it can't be quantified. Hence: no voter fraud.

Part of the controversy over "voter fraud," which progressives downplay as voter impersonation, is the term itself. Folks concerned about the integrity of our elections should start using the more inclusive term "election fraud," which includes voter fraud, registration fraud, and other types of fraud, such as fraud committed by election officials.

Republicans don't know precisely how much voter fraud actually occurs -- but then, neither does anyone else. However, voter fraud occurs more frequently than progressives would have us believe, as was ably demonstrated by Hans A. von Spakovsky in an August National Review article:

The claim that there is no voter fraud in the U.S. is patently ridiculous, given our rich and unfortunate history of it. As the U.S. Supreme Court said when it upheld Indiana's photo-ID law in 2008, "Flagrant examples of such fraud . . . have been documented throughout this Nation's history by respected historians and journalists." The liberal groups that fought Indiana's law didn't have much luck with liberal justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the 6-3 decision. Before being named to the Supreme Court, Justice Stevens practiced law in Chicago, a hotbed of electoral malfeasance.

Requiring photo IDs to vote is better than nothing and may help at the margins, but it isn't going to stop voter fraud. Would poll workers have photos of all registrants on hand to match against the photos presented by voters? (A better solution lies elsewhere.)

The left-wing quotes above don't even rise to the level of speculation; they're part of a deliberate concerted effort to deceive -- a propaganda campaign. Alleging that voter fraud doesn't exist is a straw man designed to divert attention away from other more pressing election problems. Alleging that an undetectable fraud doesn't exist draws attention away from the frauds that can be detected, but aren't. Alleging that voter fraud doesn't exist whitewashes America's voter registration mess.

Progressives allege that new voter ID requirements are meant to suppress turnout, especially of "the wrong kind of people," as the Doonesbury cartoon puts it. But the progressives' resistance to even the most basic safeguards is an attempt to keep elections open to theft. Progressives don't care about the integrity of elections; they just want to win, by whatever means necessary.

America is fast approaching what some think is the most important election in our lives, an election that will determine what kind of nation we are going to be. And yet we come to this critical decision with election systems that can be gamed.

Jon N. Hall is a programmer/analyst from Kansas City – Posted at American Thinker

Stealing Election 2012

Soros Eyes Secretaries

Eligibility Rulings Vanish From Net

Obama State Ballot Challenge 2012

Monday, November 14, 2011

Obama State Ballot Challenge 2012

Congress and the Department of Justice have failed us in allowing an un-Constitutionally qualified Barack Hussein Obama to be sworn in and remain in office. What’s even worse, is that Obama feels he is above the law – and he has been. Obama has committed many criminal and un-Constitutional activities.

The citizens of this country were not ready for our federal government to fail us regarding Obama’s usurpation of the White House. Ballot challenge deadlines were missed and state Secretaries of State used this as their excuse to not stop the confirmation of the 2008 election.

WE ARE READY NOW!!!!!!! This campaign against Obama and his handlers will prevail!

The OBAMA STATE BALLOT CHALLENGE 2012 is what is going to stop Obama from taking office again in 2012. Obama’s name on the ballot will be legally challenged in every state. The evidence of a forged birth certificate on whitehouse.gov and the evidence that he is using a Connecticut social security number that does not belong to him, will be submitted in each court. The problem from 2008 is that all of the state deadlines were missed because they are only typically a few days after the Party files their nominee’s name with the state. The deadlines will not be missed this time. Ballot challenge laws and procedures from each state will be posted here and a new website to come.

The Democrat party should try to save face and expose Obama and remove him from the 2012 ticket now and nominate someone else. Democrat party, the odds are not in your favor, remove Obama now to avoid further criminal implication in his identity fraud crimes. In addition to this, there is Obama’s involvement with Fast and Furious and pay to play bribery schemes from Solyndra and other “green” companies. This is just the short list.

Many citizens have volunteered to file lawsuits in their state, but we would like at least 5 people from each state to help with the lawsuits and the funding. Typically filing fees are around $350 with another $200 in other fees per state.

You do NOT need to be an attorney to file. If you would like to donate time or money please reply to this post and I will not publish the comments. A Paypal account for funding will be set up for donations in the near future. If you would like to send a check reply to this post and I will send you a business address.

The purpose of this project is to gather in one place the information needed to challenge Obamas name being placed on the ballot in each of the states, so that voters in each state know the process of how to challenge a candidates name being placed on the ballot.

For each state, there is a link for the Secretary of States office. If there is no additional information, it means that there is no information on that page regarding the process ( if any ) to challenge a candidates name before or after it is placed on the ballot ( both for the primaries and general election ). This is where you come in. We need people to contact their states Secretary of State
and find what the rules are for challenging a candidate ( for example, the number of days before or after a name is placed on the ballot when one can legally challenge ).

Once you have that information, send it to me at the Contact link above and it will be posted ( once verified ) so that others will know the process. Remember, all it takes is one state to challenge the ballot !!!

Click on any state below to receive more information on the law in your state.

Alabama

Alabama Secretary of State Office

Contact Info : Beth.Chapman@sos.alabama.gov
Information

Alaska

State of Alaska Division of Elections

Contact Info: gail.fenumiai@alaska.gov

Arizona

Arizona Secretary of State Office

Contact Info : Website Email Form
Information

Arkansas

Arkansas Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: electionsemail@sos.arkansas.gov

California

California Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: Website Email Form
Information

Colorado

Colorado Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: sos.elections@sos.state.co.us

Connecticut

Connecticut Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: lead@ct.gov

Delaware

Commissioner of Elections

Contact Info: Office of the State Election Commissioner

Telephone: 302-739-4277

FAX: 302-739-6794

Florida

Florida Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: secretaryofstate@dos.state.fl.us

Georgia

Georgia Secretary of State Office

Contact Info : Website Email Form

Hawaii

Office of Elections
Contact Info: elections@hawaii.gov
Information

Idaho

Idaho Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: sosinfo@sos.idaho.gov

Illinois

Illinois Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: Website Email Form

Indiana

Indiana Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: constituent@sos.IN.gov
Information

Iowa

Iowa Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: sos@sos.state.ia.us
Information

Kansas

Kansas Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: sos@sos.ks.gov
Information

Kentucky

Kentucky Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: Website Email Form

Louisiana

No Information

Maine

Maine Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: cec.elections@maine.gov
Information

Maryland

Maryland Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: mdsos@sos.state.md.us

Massachusetts

Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth Office

Contact Info: cis@sec.state.ma.us

Michigan

Michigan Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: Website Email Form

Minnesota

Minnesota Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: elections.dept@state.mn.us
Information

Mississippi

Mississippi Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: Website Email Form

Missouri

Missouri Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: elections@sos.mo.gov
Information

Montana

Montana Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: secretary@mt.gov
Information

Nebraska

Nebraska Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: sos.elect@nebraska.gov
Information

Nevada

Nevada Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: sosmail@sos.nv.gov
Information

New Hampshire

New Hampshire Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: Elections@sos.state.nh.us
Information

New Jersey

New Jersey Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: Feedback@sos.state.nj.us
Information

New Mexico

New Mexico Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: diannaj.duran@state.nm.us

New York

New York Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: Website Email Form

North Carolina

North Carolina Secretary of State Office

Contact Info : Elaine F. Marshall, Secretary of State

Phone:(919) 807-2005

Fax: 807-2020

North Dakota

North Dakota Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: sos@nd.gov

Ohio

Ohio Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: Website Email Form

Oklahoma

Oklahoma Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: Website Email Form

Oregon

Oregon Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: elections.sos@state.or.us
Information

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: RA-BCEL@pa.gov

Rhode Island

Rhode Island Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: elections@sos.ri.gov
Information

South Carolina

South Carolina Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: Website Email Form

South Dakota

South Dakota Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: elections@state.sd.us

Tennessee

Tennessee Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: tennessee.elections@tn.gov
Information

Texas

Texas Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: elections@sos.state.tx.us
Information

Utah

Utah Elections

Contact Info: Website Email Form

Vermont

Vermont Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: kscheele@sec.state.vt.us
Information

Virginia

Secretary of Commonwealth Office

Contact Info: Website Email Form
Information

Washington

Washington Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: elections@sos.wa.gov
Information

West Virginia

West Virginia Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: Website Email Form

Wisconsin

Government Accountability Board

Contact Info:gab@wi.gov
Information

Wyoming

Wyoming Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: elections@state.wy.us

Note: When contacting the Secretary of State, you may get a response that he is a citizen of the United States ( as provided by the 14th Amendment ). We have seen that response before from various congressmen. Now, there is a difference between a natural born citizen and a citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment. It is very easy to illustrate by looking at the 14th Amendment itself.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.

If you believe that this means these citizens of the United States are Article II natural-born US citizens then you could substitute the term citizens in the 14th Amendment with the term natural born citizens. Doing so gives this :

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are natural born citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

So, if the two terms citizens and natural born citizens are interchangeable then that would imply that naturalized citizens – those born overseas and later granted US citizenship – are eligible to become President of the United States. Even elementary school children know that is not possible and was never the intent of the Founding Fathers. Thus it is very clear that 14th Amendment citizens ARE NOT the same as natural born citizens. ( A natural born citizen is a 14th Amendment citizen, but a 14th Amendment citizen is not necessarily a natural born citizen )

In addition, you have John Bingham – the author of the 14th Amendment- stating on the floor of the House in 1866:

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen

He is clearly indicating here what a natural born citizen is. A child born of two parents (plural) not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty , i.e both parents have to be U S citizens ( not necessarily natural born citizens )

Source:  UnlawfulPresident.com  - h/t to Jean Stoner

Related:

Soros Eyes Secretaries

Eligibility Rulings Vanish From Net