Category Archives: 2012 Election

Mainly black crowd walks out on Obama at Democratic campaign rally

The bloom is really off the POS’s stinking rose.

Anthony G. Brown

Anthony G. Brown

Yesterday, Oct. 19, 2014, Obama spoke at a campaign rally in Upper Marlboro in eastern Maryland for Anthony G. Brown, the state’s Obama-lookalike lieutenant governor who’s running for governor.

In the midst of President Ebola’s 25-minute speech, while he was still speaking, members of his audience left in droves.

Politico reports that although “the crowd was energetic in waiting for the president and in welcoming him to the stage, but once the president started speaking, the crowd began streaming out, a few at first, but then by the dozen once Obama was about 10 minutes into his talk.”

That means they didn’t even make it through the halfway point of his speech.

crowd walks out on Obama speech

What is significant is that:

1. The crowd at the rally was overwhelmingly black.

2. Eastern Maryland is Obama country:

  • The Barack Obama Elementary School is just down the road from the campaign rally.
  • Close to 90% of votes cast here in the 2012 presidential election were for Obama, the best he did in any county in the state.

3. The subject of Obama’s speech was encouraging heavy black turnout for the impending midterm elections.

HA HA HA HA HA!

~Eowyn

Something’s rotten in Vermont: People not on voter rolls allowed to vote in 2012

More evidence of voter fraud in the 2012 presidential election that returned President Ebola to a second term so he can finish his job of destroying America.

my work here is done

Bruce Parker reports for Watchdog.org, Oct. 8, 2014, that in the 2012 presidential election, 17,383 votes were cast in Burlington, Vermont, according to city-published data. However, 639 of those votes or 3.7%, came from election day walk-in voters whose names were not on the voter rolls and whose registration status was unknown. 

That startling fact is derived from data not published by the city, obtained by Vermont Watchdog from printed checklists updated by poll workers and maintained by the Board for Registration of Voters.

In the 2012 general election, voters whose names were not on the checklist, but were handwritten-in and permitted to vote in Burlington, were as follows:

  • 181 names in Wards One and Two.
  • 114 in Ward Three.
  • 50 in Ward Four.
  • 128 in Ward Five.
  • 112 in Ward Six.
  • 54 in Ward Seven.

In big elections in Burlington, hundreds of people absent from voter rolls show up to vote. Instead of being turned away or given provisional ballots, the individuals fill out voter affirmation forms, get added to the statewide checklist and vote on the spot — whether or not the voters can be verified as having registered with the state. Critics say the process is rife with abuse and amounts to same-day registration, which is unlawful.

When Watchdog contacted the clerk/treasurer’s office to find out how many individuals voted in recent elections despite not appearing on the statewide checklist, Scott Schrader, Burlington’s elections chief, said affirmation forms from the 2012 presidential election were discarded. Forms from this year’s Town Meeting Day also went missing with a clerk who no longer works for the city.

The unpublished data sheds light on elections in Burlington after citizen poll watchers exposed a need for greater scrutiny in the Queen City, and after city officials on Monday halted early voting when Republican candidates for Justice of the Peace were found missing from the ballot. Reprinted ballots will cost the city $10,000.

Burlington isn’t the only city in Vermont that experiences unusually high numbers of unverified voters in big elections. Montpelier also saw a spike in 2012.

John Odum, city clerk for Montpelier, said his office kept a record of voter affirmation forms filled out during the 2012 general election. Of 4,558 votes cast in Montpelier, 98 votes, or 2.2%, came from individuals whose names were not on the statewide checklist.

Odum told Vermont Watchdog, “(The numbers) were quite high for the last general. It was a little jaw-dropping, actually. You find a lot more of them in the general (election). That’s when the parties and candidates make the big push to go out and get people registered.”

According to Odum, Vermont allows such voting because delays exist in the voter registration process. He confirmed that individuals whose names don’t appear on the statewide checklist cast standard ballots, not provisional ballots, after signing an affirmation form: “The affirmation is an affidavit you’re signing under penalty of perjury. You’re basically saying, ‘I did my part in good faith; in good faith, I registered or thought I was registering … and yet I did not show up on your checklist.’”

Will Senning, elections director at the Vermont Secretary of State’s Office, said in email not only do such individuals vote on election day, but they also become registered voters right there at the polling place: “By statute, the Board of Civil Authority is directed to add to the checklist, at the polling place, the names of persons who sign the affirmation form and are otherwise qualified to be on the checklist … There is no further verification required.”

When asked what would happen if such voters didn’t, in fact, register through the DMV, a clerk’s office or a third-party group, Senning replied:

“Because the affirmation form is a legal document signed by the voter under pains of perjury, and because statute directs that persons who sign that form be added to the checklist at the polling place, their vote is counted the same as all other registered voters.”

Officials in Burlington and Montpelier said they weren’t worried about fraud since voters face the threat of perjury. But when asked if the state ever prosecuted anyone for falsifying voter affirmation forms, Odum replied, “I don’t know. It’s an interesting question.” When the question was put to Schrader, he said, “I have no idea.”

Nevertheless, both affirmed the public needn’t worry about the surge of people showing up to vote in big elections despite not being on the voter rolls. Odum said, “When they get that affidavit, that is the process by which they affirmatively state, ‘I did do my job as a citizen, I did register to vote, and I’m not on your list. And I should have the right to vote anyway.’ And then you given them a ballot.”

Another sign that the once great United States of America is becoming a third world country by the day . . . .

The City of Burlington’s website grandly declares that “The mission of the Office of the City Clerk/Treasurer is to maintain and strengthen five basic structures of local democracy: elections, public records, City Council proceedings, licensing, and the dissemination of public information.”

As the city’s elections chief, Scott Schrader, Asst. Chief Administrative Officer at the city’s Clerk/Treasurer’s Office, sure isn’t living up to those grand words. Here’s his contact info:

Phone: (802)865-7140
Email: sschrader@burlingtonvt.gov

I searched the Internet for a pic of Shrader, but was not successful. The only image of him is from a WCAX news video, from which I took this screenshot of the scumbag:

Scott Shrader, elections chief, Burlington, VT

Scott Shrader, elections chief, Burlington, VT

See also:

~Eowyn

Why Are Californian Republicans Such Sniveling Cowards?

image

There were two excellent candidates for governor in California’s June primary: Tim Donnely, a pro-family, pro-life, pro-Constitution, liberty-loving Tea Party Republican, and Robert Newman, a pro-family, pro-life, pro-Constitution independent.

So who did Californian Republicans vote for? Neel Kashkari, a Republican-in-name-only who supports Obamacare and admits he voted for aka-Obama, who once worked as a junior banker for Goldman Sachs, and who, in 2008, was given control of $700 billion of tax-payer money which he handed out to the banking industry, including his former employer, Goldman Sachs.

Ask Republicans why they voted for a such a candidate and their immediate response is, “We have to win in November.” And yet they keep losing.

Ever been to a Californian Republican meeting? I have, several times. Half the time is spent arguing over procedural matters, and the other half consists of members, who just happen to work for companies like Nation Builder, pitching their services, which just happen to be extremely expensive.

If someone has the temerity to suggest that the party embrace their conservative roots by coming out in strong support of the Constitution, the pro-life movement, traditional marriage, etc., they are applauded by most in attendance, but then told by the “leaders” that they are being “unrealistic.” “We have to win in November,” they say, and yet they keep losing.

Ever volunteered to work for the Republican Party? I have, several times. No one returned any of my phone calls or emails.

California Republicans loathe the Tea Party. They see the Tea Party as a threat to their established ways. They claim the Tea Party does not represent their members. And yet they keep losing.

In California there are numerous races in which the Republican Party does not even bother to run a candidate. “No chance to win,” they say. “We have to be realistic.” And yet they keep losing.

image

Orly Taitz ran for Attorney General as an independent in the June primary. Possessed with infinite courage and wisdom, Taitz would have done everything she could to clean house and expose political corruption. Did Republicans vote for her? No, they didn’t have the guts.

If you voted for Neel Kashkari in California’s primary, I’m calling you out. Why did you betray your state, your country, your family, and yourself by voting for such a man? Why are you such a damn, sniveling coward?

http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2011/07/02/the-gop-went-over-to-the-dark-side/

http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2012/11/15/why-the-gop-will-not-do-anything-about-vote-fraud/

57 Cops Murdered by “Unarmed” Criminals: From Stephen Frank

From Stephen Frank:

We are told a lot about Ferguson—how an unarmed man was shot by a police officer. The media called him “unarmed”. Since 2000 57 cops nationwide were shot to death by “unarmed” criminals. This happens when the criminal takes a gun from the cop and uses it to kill. Yet, the Times of any variety, the Post, etc. talk about a cop in Ferguson killing an “unarmed” man—without ANY facts.

The aftermath of police encounters with “unarmed” individuals — 57 murders

“While statistics for officers killed with their own weapons are hard to find, we know from the FBI and http://www.odmp.org that between 2000-10, at least51 officers were killed by suspects who used the officer’s own gun. Four officers were killed in 2011, one officer in 2013. While the data for 2014 is not final, we know that Johnson City (New York) Police Officer David Smith was murdered this past March with his own weapon.

Thus asking, “What justification do the police have for killing an unarmed suspect?” and answering “none” as former Police Chief Joseph McNamara did in this blog is pointless.”

0811-riot

57 Cops Killed by “UNARMED” Criminals

By LA Police Protective League, Board of Directors 08/26/2014

Repeated descriptions of a suspect as “unarmed” when shot by a police officer does not, contrary to the belief of the New York Times and others who use the term without further describing the facts of the encounter, determine if the force used by an officer was lawful or reasonable. Labeling the suspect as “unarmed” does not begin to answer the question of the danger they posed in each instance where deadly force was used.

According to the FBI’s online database of officers feloniously killed, as well as the Officer Down Memorial Page, since 2000, there have been at least 57 occurrences where the suspects have taken officers’ weapons and murdered the police officer with it. Fifty-seven times, loved ones of those officers heard the awful knock on their front door, notifying them that their husband, wife, father, mother, son or daughter would never be coming home again. Fifty-seven times, the threat that some loudly continue to claim does not exist, ended with fatal results.

While statistics for officers killed with their own weapons are hard to find, we know from the FBI andwww.odmp.org that between 2000-10, at least 51 officers were killed by suspects who used the officer’s own gun. Four officers were killed in 2011, one officer in 2013. While the data for 2014 is not final, we know that Johnson City (New York) Police Officer David Smith was murdered this past March with his own weapon.

Thus asking, “What justification do the police have for killing an unarmed suspect?” and answering “none” as former Police Chief Joseph McNamara did in this blog is pointless. Twenty-five years ago, in the case ofGraham v. Connor, the United States Supreme Court set forth the legal standard for evaluating a use of force. The U.S. Supreme Court wrote an officer’s action is judged in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. Crucially, the “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the “perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene.” The U.S. Supreme Court recognized that the “calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.”

The reality is that police officers need and wear guns. Those firearms can be taken by “unarmed” suspects and turned against the officer. Many armchair experts across the country sit around their air-conditioned conference rooms, pondering their views on how police officers could kill an “unarmed suspect” and the non-existent threat they pose to officers. We must ask, what did they use to as the factual basis for their conclusions? Is it from fictional police dramas on TV? Gut instinct?

We won’t be so crass as to suggest that we give a gun to the columnists and editorial writers who equate “unarmed” with “not dangerous,” and then tell them that although we are unarmed, we are going to try to take that gun from them. If successful, we will use the gun to shoot them. While we are confident this scenario might slightly affect their mindset on “unarmed” suspects, the tragic reality is that scenario has happened at least 57 times in 14 years.

Until all of the facts surrounding the use of force by any officer are known, the urge to decide whether the use of deadly force was reasonable and lawful is simply a “rush to judgment”—no matter how many times the suspect is referred to as “unarmed.”

The Worst RACISTS in America! (They HATE Black People!)

Do you know who was the biggest supporter and promoter of slavery in America?

Do you know who was so outraged by the abolition of slavery in this country that they formed the Ku Klux Klan and participated in countless murders, beatings, and lynchings?

Do you know who is responsible for undermining the black father and removing him from the home, thus creating an endless cycle of crime and poverty within the black community?

Do you know who is most responsible for promoting abortion among black mothers?

Do you know who has the most to gain by maintaining an underclass of black Americans and preventing them from attaining financial independence?

Do you know who is most adamant about judging people by their skin color rather than their character?

Do you know who is the biggest promoter of division among the races today?

The answer to all of these questions is… the Democratic Party.

Are You Young and Dumb?

Here’s a quick quiz. Please answer A, B, or C, and please
be honest with yourself. (And note that young does not necessarily correspond to chronological age.) Are you:

A) Young and intelligent.

B) Young and misinformed.

C) Young and dumb.

Young and intelligent is weighing all sides of an issue and
then forming a viewpoint based on facts and logic. Most young
and intelligent people began life young and misinformed.

Somewhere along the line, they decided that maybe there were two sides to the stories they were being told, and then went out to investigate for themselves. Approximately 5-10% of the American population is young and intelligent.

Young and misinformed is believing everything you’ve been
told by your college professors and the mainstream media.

There’s no shame in being young and misinformed. 90% of all
Americans were young and misinformed at one time or another, and a good 60% of adult Americans remain in this group.

Someone who is young and misinformed has a distorted view
of reality, but is still intelligent enough to consider
alternative viewpoints. They just have never been exposed to
those alternative viewpoints.

Young and dumb is somebody who is not only young and
misinformed, they are also incapable of considering and judging
any viewpoints other than what they currently believe.

Even worse, the young and dumb don’t want to hear
alternative viewpoints. Their emotional state is so fragile
that to even consider alternative viewpoints is positively
frightening. Therefore, they refuse to look at any evidence
that contradicts their own myopic and misinformed view of the
world. They value opinion and emotions over facts and logic.

30% of all Americans are young and dumb, and they include
some of the most esteemed and educated individuals in our
country.

If you’re wondering where you fit in these three examples, ask yourself this:

Are you aware that aka Barack Obama is a pathological liar and who has broken the law on numerous occasions, including ordering the IRS to attack his opponents?

Are you aware that Michael Brown was videotaped performing a violent strong-arm robbery minutes before he was shot, and most likely assaulted the police officer who did shoot him?

Are you aware the Hillary Clinton left four Americans to die and then later infamously proclaimed, “What difference at this point does it make?”

Are you aware that the mainstream media routinely twists facts and fabricates lies in order to advance a leftist agenda?

Are you aware that most American universities are centers of leftist indoctrination?

If you answered YES to these five questions, then you belong in the first group. You are young and intelligent.

If you were caught off-guard by these questions, and have no idea how to answer them, you belong to the second group, the young and misinformed.

If you denied the reality of these five questions, then, alas, you are a member of the third group, the young and dumb. Please seek help now and at least attempt to educate yourself. The fact that you are on this site and reading this is a good sign and a good start. You’ve taken the first step to becoming young and intelligent.

Mike

A Primer on Race by Thomas Sowell

Back in the heyday of the British Empire, a man from one of the colonies addressed a London audience.

“Please do not do any more good in my country,” he said. “We have suffered too much already from all the good that you have done.”

That is essentially the message of an outstanding new book by Jason Riley about blacks in America. Its title is “Please Stop Helping Us.” Its theme is that many policies designed to help blacks are in fact harmful, sometimes devastatingly so. These counterproductive policies range from minimum wage laws to “affirmative action” quotas.

This book untangles the controversies, the confusions, and the irresponsible rhetoric in which issues involving minimum wage laws are usually discussed. As someone who has followed minimum wage controversies for decades, I must say that I have never seen the subject explained more clearly or more convincingly.

Black teenage unemployment rates ranging from 20 to 50 percent have been so common over the past 60 years that many people are unaware that this was not true before there were minimum wage laws, or even during years when inflation rendered minimum wage laws ineffective, as in the late 1940s.

Pricing young people out of work deprives them not only of income but also of work experience, which can be even more valuable. Pricing young people out of legal work, when illegal work is always available, is just asking for trouble. So is having large numbers of idle young males hanging out together on the streets.

When it comes to affirmative action, Jason Riley asks the key question: “Do racial preferences work? What is the track record?” Like many other well-meaning and nice-sounding policies, affirmative action cannot survive factual scrutiny.

Some individuals may get jobs they would not get otherwise but many black students who are quite capable of getting a good college education are admitted, under racial quotas, to institutions whose pace alone is enough to make it unlikely that they will graduate.

Studies that show how many artificial failures are created by affirmative action admissions policies are summarized in “Please Stop Helping Us,” in language much easier to understand than in the original studies.

There are many ponderous academic studies of blacks, if you have a few months in which to read them, but there is nothing to match Jason Riley’s book as a primer that will quickly bring you up to speed on the complicated subject of race in a week, or perhaps over a weekend.

As an experienced journalist, rather than an academic, Riley knows how to use plain English to get to the point. He also has the integrity to give it to you straight, instead of in the jargon and euphemisms too often found in discussions of race. The result is a book that provides more knowledge and insight in a couple of hundred pages than are usually found in books twice that length.

Unlike academics who just tell facts, Riley knows which facts are telling.

For example, in response to claims that blacks don’t do well academically because the schools use an approach geared to white students, he points out that blacks from foreign, non-English-speaking countries do better in American schools than black, English-speaking American students.

Asian students do better than whites in schools supposedly geared to whites. In New York City’s three academically elite public high schools — Stuyvesant, Bronx Science and Brooklyn Tech — there are more than twice as many Asian students as white students in all three institutions.

So much for the theory that non-whites can’t do well in schools supposedly geared to whites.

On issue after issue, “Please Stop Helping Us” cites facts to destroy propaganda and puncture inflated rhetoric. It is impossible to do justice to the wide range of racial issues — from crime to family disintegration — explored in this book. Pick up a copy and open pages at random to see how the author annihilates nonsense.

His brief comments pack a lot of punch. For example, “having a black man in the Oval Office is less important than having one in the home.”

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University