Thursday, November 11, 2010

Massive Voting Fraud Reported in Massachusetts

While conservatives in most of the rest of the country woke up to a celebration last Wednesday, those of us marooned in Massachusetts found ourselves left high and dry by a red wave that didn’t have quite enough oomph to overcome the leftist machine our home state is so infamous for. In spite of a number of good candidates and a palpable level of Republican voter enthusiasm, most of the races weren’t even close. Many pundits have ascribed this surprising finish in large part to the effectiveness of the organized get out the vote effort that the Democrat establishment, along with their community organizer and union allies, were able to bring to bear. Even the best and most well-funded candidates versus the most scandal-ridden incumbents are hard-pressed to overcome the extra percentage points this structure is able to set into gear on election day.

But what if existing laws and mores were, in fact, violated? That’s where what went on at the polls on Tuesday comes in. I have heard from multiple poll watchers who noted apparent or possible irregularities at the voting places they were stationed, and Neighbor to Neighbor Massachusetts takes center stage.

Read More Here:Pajamas Media » Massive Voting Fraud Reported in Massachusetts

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Big Industry Funds Republicans ?

During the campaigns in 2008 and 2010 we heard constantly about how the Republicans were the party of big business and evil coporations, now that election 2010 is over, let’s look at which evil corporations supported and bought Congress for the Republicans:

Defense Contractors: 55% Democrat, 44% Republican ($18 million)
Securities & Investment: 53% Democrat, 46% Republican ($8.2 million)
Hedge Funds: 53% Democrat, 46% Republican ($6.8 million total)
Venture Capital: 64% Democrat, 36% Republican ($6.4 million)
Private Equity: 56% Democrat, 43% Republican ($4.6 million)
HMO/Health services: 58% Democrats, 40% Republicans ($9.4 million)
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing: 51% Democrats, 48% Republicans ($10.4 million)
Medical Supply: 57% Democrats, 42% Republicans ($4.4 million)
Hospitals/Nursing Homes: 63% Democrat, 36% Republican ($14.9 million)
Lobbyists:65% Democrat, 34% Republican ($23.5 million) (I especially love this one, how many times have we heard about Republicans and the evil lobbyists from the Democraps...Jay)

In fairness, here are a few industries that did support Republicans:

Dental: 37% Democrat, 62% Republican ($5.3 million)
Health professionals: 48% Democrat, 50% Republican ($55 million)
Credit/Finance:48% Democrat, 52% Republican ($5.8 million)
Commercial Banks: 41% Democrat, 59% Republican ($15.4 million)
Insurance (Health, life and property): 48% Democrat, 52% Republican ($31.2 million)
Agribusiness: 41% Democrat, 58% Republican ($40 million)

So...tell me again who is the party of big business, especially Lobbyists ?

Read More Here:Washington Examiner

Talk Show America - 11/8/2010 | ipadio | Talk to your World

Talk Show America - 11/8/2010 ipadio Talk to your World

Jay discusses the 2010 election results and where we go from here.

Tuesday, November 09, 2010

Congressional Report: Obama Eligibility Unvetted

'There is no specific federal agency' to vette candidates for federal office

A congressional document posted on the Internet confirms no one – not Congress, not the states and not election officials – bothered to check Barack Obama's eligibility to be president, and that status remains undocumented to this day.

It's because state and federal law did not require anyone in Congress or elsewhere to check to see if Obama was a "natural born Citizen" under the meaning of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, according the document.

The analysis by the Congressional Research Service, a research arm of the U.S. Congress, openly admits no one in the federal government, including Congress, ever asked to see Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate. It explains no one was required to do so.

The CRS memo also admits that federal elections are administered under state law, a circumstance apparent to lawyers but sometimes complicated for others.

The relevant paragraph:

"The mechanics of elections of federal officials within the several states are administered under state law. The quadrennial presidential election, although required since 1845 to be held on the same day in each state is, in an administrative and operational sense, fifty-one separate elections in the states and the District of Columbia for presidential electors. States generally control, within the applicable constitutional parameters, the administrative issues, questions, and mechanisms of ballot placement and ballot access."
The next key point is that like federal law, neither do state laws require anyone to examine the birth qualifications of presidential candidates.

The states may have discretionary authority to question a candidate's eligibility to run for federal office, but there is no requirement in state law to do so, not when it comes to looking at birth records.

Once more, the memo makes this plain:

"In Keyes v. Bowen, the California Supreme Court discussed a suit against the secretary of state that challenged President Obama's eligibility and the California electoral votes for [the] finding that: 'Petitioners have not identified any authority requiring the secretary of state to make an inquiry into or demand detailed proof of citizenship from presidential candidates,' and thus mandamus (a writ of mandate) was not granted. However, although no 'ministerial duty' or mandatory requirement exists to support a mandamus action, there may still exist discretionary authority in such elections official."

The CRS's conclusion is that Obama could refuse to show his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate because no state or federal law required him reveal it.

The report said, therefore, Obama could release exactly what information he chose.

"Despite the absence of any formal administrative or legal requirement or oversight at the federal level, or specific state requirement to produce a birth certificate for ballot placement, it may be noted here briefly that the only 'official' documentation or record that has been presented in the matter of President Obama's eligibility has been an official, certified copy of the record of live birth released by the Obama campaign in June of 2008, as an apparent effort by then-candidate Obama to address rumors and innuendos concerning the place of his birth."
The result is that Obama could choose exactly what information – and in what format – he wanted released. He chose the computer-generated Certification of Live Birth, a form from the state of Hawaii that officials there have provided to those not born in the state, to document his eligibility.

The CRS also makes it clear that if the birth requirements of the Constitution are to be taken seriously, new laws at the state and federal levels will be needed to institutionalize government procedures requiring president candidates to come forward with their eligibility documentation.

Read More Here