Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 19, 2014, 05:25:16 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
79146 Posts in 2226 Topics by 1037 Members
Latest Member: DCoutinho
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, corruption etc.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] Print
Author Topic: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, corruption etc.  (Read 56213 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29595


« Reply #400 on: November 19, 2013, 08:07:25 PM »

O'Reilly mentioned the cooking of the pre-election unemployment numbers tonight and said it would be covered more tomorrow.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3790


« Reply #401 on: November 20, 2013, 07:22:33 AM »

Rush reminded us he predicted the unemployment rate would magically dip below 8 well before the election.  In fact I remember him saying this.  I doubt that there was not one listener who did not agree with his prediction.  I also doubt there was not one listener who also did not agree with his insinuation that the "books would be cooked" to achieve this "magical" number.

The MSM is silent. 

"oh these are career government officials"

as though their integrity and honesty is above reproach.

Unfortunately there are no Nixon tapes of Obama and/or his henchman Axelrod  to be discovered.

I guess only then could we speak of impeachment.  Like the mafia.   It is hard to connect the evidence to the masterminds pulling the strings.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5525


« Reply #402 on: November 20, 2013, 09:27:28 AM »

Rush reminded us he predicted the unemployment rate would magically dip below 8 well before the election.  In fact I remember him saying this.  I doubt that there was not one listener who did not agree with his prediction.  I also doubt there was not one listener who also did not agree with his insinuation that the "books would be cooked" to achieve this "magical" number.

The MSM is silent. 
"oh these are career government officials"
as though their integrity and honesty is above reproach.

Unfortunately there are no Nixon tapes of Obama and/or his henchman Axelrod  to be discovered.

I guess only then could we speak of impeachment.  Like the mafia.   It is hard to connect the evidence to the masterminds pulling the strings.

Wesbury warned that the economy alone wouldn't be bad enough to defeat the President.  But ccp is right, Rush predicted for a year that the manipulation of the data would magically happen coming into the election.  Jack Welch also commented on the cooked books and the media, refusing any role as a watchdog, just lazily claimed the critics to be wearing tin foil hats.  Now it turns out to be true, much worse than we thought, and there will be no consequence?

"Unfortunately there are no Nixon tapes of Obama and/or his henchman Axelrod  to be discovered."

Yes there are, such as the IRS targeting communications contradicting the testimony and reports in the Federal Register exposing the President's lies. We just don't have them 'Obama administration tapes' yet because no one is demanding their release.  We won't get them without an effective and relentless special prosecutor.

I keep pointing to this one example.  A group called ACORN was banned from federal funding for their co-mingling of taxpayer dollars and political activities - and they have since reappeared under many different names.  The head of ACORN said the co-mingling of funds was impossible due to the impermeable "firewall" (what a joke!) separating these activities, even though it was the same people working both sides in the same office.  Yes there is attrition, but largely the same community organizers became the Census 2010 paid workers, learning everything about everyone in the neighborhoods, outside the constitution and at taxpayer expense, who then became the paid workers of the Obama 2012 campaign to 'get out the vote'.  They called it a magical and top secret "data mining" operation.  But they knew who was black.  They knew who was Hispanic, and they knew who was in every other identifiable demographic group.  They knew who relied on food stamps.  They knew who was on Section 8.  They knew who got medicaid and all other federal programs and they came to their doors with iphones and clipboards tracking voters, arranging rides and making sure all the targeted people voted.  It was not data mining, it was illegal data sharing.  I came from the people to the government, and then to the campaign.  All the while, in a different agency of the same executive branch, conservative groups were targeted, questioned and prevented from organize in opposition, while in a third agency they were cooking the books to change the story line, and in a fourth agency they were covering up events overseas that contradict the President saying al Qaida was 'on the run' even though he slept while they were surrounding and killing Americans.

The idea that there is no trail to the top turned out to be false when we looked at the IRS.  It went to the top, to a guy who had daily meetings with the White House.

If we investigate, subpoena evidence and compel testimony on the rest of these irregularities, we will find the 'Nixon tapes and much worse.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3790


« Reply #403 on: November 20, 2013, 08:50:34 PM »

"If we investigate, subpoena evidence and compel testimony on the rest of these irregularities, we will find the 'Nixon tapes and much worse."

How can "we" do this?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29595


« Reply #404 on: November 22, 2013, 06:07:26 AM »



http://patriotpost.us/posts/21802


« Last Edit: November 22, 2013, 06:17:52 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5525


« Reply #405 on: November 22, 2013, 11:32:43 AM »


Yes, where did we first hear that the top secret, highly successful, campaign data mining operation was really the illegal leaking of private data by partisan government workers also working on the campaign?  And that the government workers gathering our private data and the campaign workers using that same data were actually the same people?  wink
 
In answer to ccp's question, how can we get this investigated, it is good to see people are following up on the points made here on the forum:

Same healthcare 'navigator' caught by James O'Keefe releasing private data for political purposes was also regional field director for Organizing for Action, Barack Obama's campaign arm.

As I wrote earlier, if you investigate, you will find it is the same people and same data.  Highly illegal.  No consequence.
------------------
http://www.examiner.com/article/busted-enroll-america-employee-latest-sting-video-former-ofa-official

Earlier Thursday, we reported that James O'Keefe released a video showing an Obamacare navigator conspiring to release personal data obtained through the healthcare website for partisan political purposes. The plot thickened, however, when the Gateway Pundit's Jim Hoft revealed on Wednesday that Christopher Tarango, the navigator in O'Keefe's video, was also the regional field director for the El Paso office of Organizing for Action, Barack Obama's campaign arm.

"In fact," Hoft said, "Tarango is mentioned on Obama’s official Organizing for Action website."

Tarango, Hoft added, was a top official with Obama's campaign arm.

"Now he’s working for Enroll America – and he’s willing to release private data for political purposes,"

"there's a lot of talent that got sucked into Enroll America, but we are all Obama people."

SMU political science professor Matthew Wilson told KDFW there are strict barriers regarding the sharing of information and resources.  "The difficulty is, how bright a line can you draw between the non-partisan activities and the specifically political activities when it's exactly the same people doing both?"
-----------------

Attorney General of the United States Eric Holder will be all over this, I'm sure!  A special prosecutor?  RICO prosecution? 

An organized, criminal operation undermining our electoral system - on a national scale, large enough to swing a Presidential election is treason, is it not?  Or was this, too, "just the Cincinnati office"?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #406 on: November 22, 2013, 11:39:59 AM »

Another "fake" scandal that will get no coverage from the MSM.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5525


« Reply #407 on: November 25, 2013, 10:08:51 AM »

The Census is our private data, taken forcibly and unconstitutionally from us by the government, and then shared with leftist political thugs. The White House and the campaign and control of the 2010 Census operation are all one and the same.  I watched the campaign work the inner city this past campaign. They knew exactly who they were looking for and skipped the others.  That information didn't come from "data mining".  It came from the Census, food stamp rolls etc.  Finally a reporter has emerged with an informant is on the edge of this massive scandal.  Maybe more activists and insiders will begin to see the lies they were told and come forward with their stories.
-----------------------------------------------------------
False job numbers: Did the White House know?

By John Crudele,  NY Post
November 23, 2013
False job numbers: Did the White House know?
Photo:  Rahm Emanuel and President Obama at a DNC fundraising event in 2011.


Let me be the first to ask: Did the White House know that employment reports were being falsified?

Last week I reported exclusively that someone at the Census Bureau’s Philadelphia region had been screwing around with employment data. And that person, after he was caught in 2010, claimed he was told to do so by a supervisor two levels up the chain of command.

On top of that, a reliable source whom I haven’t identified said the falsification of employment data by Census was widespread and ongoing, especially around the time of the 2012 election.

There’s now a congressional investigation of how Census handles employment data. And we can hope that we’ll find out this was just an isolated incident.

But let me tell you why it might not be.

Back in 2009 — right before the 2010 census of the nation was taken — there was an announcement that the Obama administration had decided that the Census Bureau would report to senior White House aides.

The rumor was that Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was in charge of the nationwide head count.

The chief of the Commerce Department usually oversees the Census, which determines how many congressional representatives and how much money each state gets for the next decade. But the Obama administration had decided — the story went — that Emanuel was a better guy for the job.

The idea that a political creature like Emanuel would be calling the shots on how states would be redistricted in coming elections sent Republicans into a tizzy.

“This is nothing more than a political land grab,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah).

Other Republicans expressed similar dismay. And the tension got so high that Judd Gregg, a Republican senator from New Hampshire, even withdrew his nomination to be Commerce secretary. (Gary Locke assumed that post.)

And why wouldn’t the Republicans be bothered? Even though the average American might think the census is nothing more than a nuisance, by Washington’s two most important standards — votes and money — it’s anything but.

So here’s where my story picks up.

Back in 2010, I started getting reports that the Census Bureau had some very unusual hiring practices. Census takers and supervisors — at risk of heavy fines — were reporting to me that large numbers of people were being hired only to be fired shortly afterward. And then rehired.

I theorized at the time that Census was trying to make the job-creation totals look better nationwide in those bleak months leading up to the midterm congressional elections.

This employment policy seemed too coordinated. The regional higher-ups at Census couldn’t be doing this on their own; there had to be a grander plan.

I still don’t know what was going on.

But then I heard about the falsification in Philly. This time, however, it wasn’t the employment numbers that were being doodled with. This time it was the unemployment data, which are gathered at the Census Bureau and handed over raw to the Labor Department.

I don’t want to get ahead of myself on this, but Philadelphia is pretty close to Washington, DC. And the census taker who was caught cheating — a guy named Julius Buckmon — had been canvassing the DC area when he was filling out forms for people who didn’t exist.

And the Census Bureau had been inexplicably downsized in recent years from eight regions to only six, giving more control to whoever had seized control.

The supervisor who was fingered by Buckmon did admit that he told other survey takers to hand in half-filled-out interviews. And the White House always has pretty good influence at the Census Bureau, even if it didn’t get its wish for Emanuel.

Maybe it’s just my deeply ingrained distrust of authority — especially when it resides in Washington — or my hope that a good story will last, but I’m betting 60/40 that the White House had grand plans for Census. And some of those may have been carried out.
http://nypost.com/2013/11/23/cooked-census-reported-to-obama-and-rahm/
« Last Edit: November 25, 2013, 12:59:00 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29595


« Reply #408 on: November 26, 2013, 04:42:15 PM »

Pasting this over here too from the Health Care thread


http://pjmedia.com/blog/rigging-the-future-obamacare-creates-50-new-state-databases-with-no-function-beyond-gathering-potential-voter-information-real-or-fraudulent/?singlepage=true

RIGGING THE FUTURE: Obamacare Creates 50 New State Databases With No Function Beyond Gathering Potential Voter Information, Real or Fraudulent

It was never just a health care “fix”: A series of precise, brilliant, secretive, and illegal decisions by Obamacare authors led to the creation of 50 unbeatable election tools — and to nothing else. As you read, try to identify a rational explanation besides malevolence. (This is Part One of a two-part article.)
by David Steinberg
Nov 26, 2013 - 8:25 am


Since the passage of Obamacare, all fifty state Medicaid agencies have been forced to create a new standalone database that contains nothing besides the contact information of Medicaid applicants who used Healthcare.gov.
 
Some of these new databases mail out voter registration forms automatically. You cannot refuse them.

 



No worthwhile verification occurs before the forms are mailed. Apply for Medicaid and the form will be mailed to you, be you a verifiable citizen or Ayman al-Zawahiri on a computer in Pakistan.
 
Further, these new databases are accessible by groups like Organizing for Action, the reconstituted ACORN, and malevolent figures like Chris Tarango.
 
And no reasonable purpose exists for creating the databases besides making them available to the aforementioned Democratic activists.
 
———————
 
Heard nothing regarding this before? Not only are you not alone, several state secretaries of State we contacted had no clue any of this was occurring under their watch. One source involved in the recently initiated legal battle to expose and dismantle the databases described the situation as follows:
 

Evil genius.
 
A complete disregard for certain federal law, the skirting of others, the exploitation of existing Medicaid structures, the issuing of rules and regulations with virtually none of the required paper trail. …
 
Just evil genius. They friggin’ thought of everything.
 
The remainder of this article is composed of descriptions of the several decisions made by Obamacare authors that led to the construction of the databases. The listing of these decisions is intended to illustrate the impossibility that these databases were created unintentionally, or due to incompetence — a “fumble.”
 
We hope to show that a rational, disinterested observer must arrive at the conclusion that these actions could not have been taken for any reason beyond the intended exploitation of the Affordable Care Act as a vehicle for future Democratic election victories.
 
We invite readers to offer alternative interpretations. We have reached out to several Democratic congressional offices to give them the opportunity to offer their own.
 
We also have reached out to GOP officials to see if any are willing to go on record stating the lone reasonable conclusion: objectively, some authors of the ACA were not “bleeding hearts,” but white-collar criminals.
 


Decision #1: The “Honor System”
 
Applicants to Healthcare.gov must enter their current income level. This is a pivotal piece of data for the system: income alone is used to determine if the applicant will be presented with the option to: a) purchase full-price or subsidized health insurance policies; or b) if the applicant will be directed towards Medicaid/CHIP programs. This determination is calculated according to the new Modified/Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) scale.
 
However, Healthcare.gov does not perform any checks at all (such as requiring the submission of pay stubs, the prior year’s tax return, etc.) to verify the income amount entered by the applicant. This all-important piece of data is accepted by Healthcare.gov on the “honor system.”
 
 
 
Decision #2: The Community Organizing, Aggressive Application of “Motor Voter” Law
 
If an applicant’s entered income is low enough to be eligible for subsidy, the applicant will soon be asked by Healthcare.gov if he or she does not wish to receive a voter registration form. This question alone utilizes aggressive application of three provisions of federal law.
 
The 1993 National Voter Registration Act, or “Motor Voter,” requires all municipal and government facilities which provide public assistance to also offer voter registration services. The Obama administration claims that “Motor Voter” thus applies to Healthcare.gov, and subsequently Healthcare.gov must provide voter registration services. Some states have disagreed with this application as it relates to state exchanges, but expect those states to face DOJ litigation – Rhode Island and other states have.
 

1. Since the adoption of Motor Voter in 1993, the Federal Government has successfully forced states to push voter registration in all on-line contexts.
 
This represents a significant distinction: the federal government has necessarily crafted entirely new fields of law to handle the development of electronic interactions.
 

2. Motor Voter specifies that facilities offering public assistance must have voter registration services available, and the Federal Government is forcing applications to specifically reject voter registration, sometimes multiple times.
 
As such, you can draw your own conclusions about the motivation behind applying Motor Voter to the ACA, and behind phrasing the question in that manner.
 

3. A stunning apparent violation of federal law: In practice, Healthcare.gov does not let you say “no” to a voter registration form.

Even if you say “no,” you may be mailed a form automatically.
 
You may receive a form that is pre-populated with the identifying information you entered into Healthcare.gov. Comprehension of the form is thus unnecessary; the recipient of the pre-populated form need only determine where to sign it.
 
As explained below, this will occur at the state level, where the design and implementation of Obamacare regarding voter registration make these transparently intentional abuses of Motor Voter seem tame.
 
Among sources reached for this article, that phrase “evil genius” was employed when referring to what Obamacare requires of state Medicaid entities; we were told its usage has become commonplace.
 
Decision #3: Restructuring Medicaid’s — and Only Medicaid’s — Eligibility Screening Procedures
 
Since the enactment of LBJ’s Great Society public assistance programs, most state Medicaid agencies have not been responsible for handling eligibility screenings.
 
Generally, screening for the various public assistance programs has instead been handled by state departments of Health and Human Services, or by similar state entities. One system would screen for all of the public assistance programs; the individual state program agencies would only handle administration.
 
After 50 years of precedence, Obamacare has changed this. But only for Medicaid.
 
As discussed earlier, if an applicant enters a qualifyingly low income into Healthcare.gov, the applicant is sent to the Medicaid side of the website. At this point, those five decades of established fraud prevention procedures are jettisoned.
 
Identifying information entered on the Medicaid side of Healthcare.gov is treated differently than identifying information entered while applying to all other public assistance programs.
 
How it works now: each state Medicaid agency has been instructed to create a new stand-alone database for storing identifying information entered by Medicaid applicants via Healthcare.gov. (Note the word “instructed,” not “required by law” or something similar. We will get to that shortly.) As instructed, all fifty states have created one of these databases.
 
They have further been instructed that this identifying information should no longer be sent to whichever state organization formerly performed the eligibility screening. The information must only go to these new databases.
 
 
 
Decision #4: The Parting of Data
 
As instructed, each state designed these new stand-alone databases to be dedicated to storing only the identifying information of Healthcare.gov applicants — but no medical data.
 
If you happen to be familiar with the basics of both health care and election law, perhaps your pupils just grew wide. Because you are aware that medical records are treated by the law as private and sacrosanct, but voter rolls, consisting of only identifying information, are publicly accessible.
 
To summarize:
 •The federal government instructed states that they could not send any applicant data entered into the Medicaid side of Healthcare.gov to their traditional eligibility screeners.
 •They then instructed state Medicaid agencies to create stand-alone databases for this new applicant information, and that these new databases would be forbidden from containing any medical information.
 •Per an incorrect application of Motor Voter law, the Obama administration considers the Medicaid side of Healthcare.gov to be a public assistance “office,” and as such, required to offer voter registration services.
 •The Obama administration also considers it legal to treat the distribution of voter registration forms as “must opt-out,” instead of “must opt-in.”
 
These four bullet points are the basis of Decision #5.
 
 
 
Decision #5: The Illegal, Automatic Mailing of Voter Registration Forms and “Opt-Out” Forms
 
States were instructed that, to comply with Motor Voter, these new databases must automatically mail voter registration forms to each new individual applicant sent over from Healthcare.gov.
 
Recall, you may have said “no” earlier. It doesn’t matter.
 
The new databases must also mail a second form that states “I do not wish to register to vote,” which you must sign and return.
 
Otherwise, it is assumed you wish to register.
 
If the Feds notice you still haven’t replied?
 
Remember Decision #4: the new databases are publicly accessible, since they do not contain any medical information.
 
Anyone – perhaps Organizing for Action, or Battleground Texas – can get their hands on it, and then show up at your door with yet another form.
 
——————–
 
Review the prior five decisions: are you able to determine a reasonable explanation for all five of them besides getting potential voter information in the hands of Democratic organizing groups? Groups populated by bad actors like Chris Tarango, but which nonetheless have the blessings of the administration?
 
Recall that this is voter information gathered via Medicaid applications, a program whose recipients vote almost exclusively Democrat.
 
If Orwell comparisons strike you as tedious, an additional instruction to the states about how they are allowed to screen eligibility, along with the precedent-breaking, whispered demands from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) that follow may have you granting an exception.
 
Decision #6: Eliminating the State Medicaid Screeners
 
For the past five decades, states have dedicated a tremendous amount of resources to providing a “second-level review” of applicant information transmitted to them via a federal agency.
 
But now, and quite simply, that has been ended. But only for Medicaid.
 
States are no longer allowed to challenge the validity of applicant information sent to them from the Medicaid side of Healthcare.gov.
 
Instead, states are to assume that if information was transmitted to them, the federal government has deemed that information to be valid. States haven’t simply been instructed to no longer let their traditional public assistance eligibility screeners touch Medicaid information from Healthcare.gov — they have been instructed that state Medicaid agencies can’t screen it, either. This isn’t an administrative shift of the state screening processes, it’s the forbidding of state screening processes.
 
We already know what little concern Healthcare.gov itself has for the validity of applicant information. The site employs the “honor system” for income, the most important piece of data. Also, as previously reported at PJ Media, the Medicaid side of Healthcare.gov allows anyone on Earth to secure at least 90 days of Medicaid with just two easily forged documents and a lie about being a legal alien.
 
The security bar is even lower for entrance into one of the new state “Medicaid/voter roll” databases. In fact, it’s non-existent: apply for Medicaid as a citizen, you’re going to end up in your state’s new “Medicaid/voter roll” database.
 
And the state is forbidden from checking the application’s validity.
 
————————-
 
This development represents an endpoint, with identifiable products of those six federal decisions. The products are:
 •Fifty unscreened databases, accessible to all, of identifying information of likely Democratic voters.
 •Fifty databases of likely Democratic voters, which automatically mail voter registration forms and required “opt-out” forms to each applicant.
 
What is the rational result of these two final products following their implementation?
 •The Democratic Party exploiting a federal law passed without a single Republican vote, a law that mandates citizen participation, a law that mandates citizens purchase a product to sustain the law financially, to produce an unbeatable tool to utilize for winning elections.
 •Bad actors within the Democratic Party, both within and outside of government, using this tool to easily commit voter fraud.
 •An organized entity hostile to the United States exploiting the massive security holes created by this Democratic law to flood the Medicaid rolls with fraudulent enrollees, rendering the massive program database unusable.
 •An organized entity hostile to the United States exploiting the massive security holes created by this Democratic law to flood the voter rolls with fraudulent identities, rendering the administration of elections impossible.
 
To employ an example from our prior article on fraudulent 90-day Medicaid enrollments:
 1.Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, from a computer in Pakistan, can tell Healthcare.gov that his income this year is zero.
 2.He will be directed to the Medicaid side of the website, where he can claim to be an American citizen temporarily living abroad.
 3.He can enter the address of his local post office.
 4.Al-Zawahiri will have himself a voter registration card arrive shortly.
 5.He can instruct his millions of supporters to do the same.
 
If Healthcare.gov was actually working, al-Qaeda could get that done by the weekend.
 
——————
 
How did the Obama administration accomplish this? Where’s the paper trail? Aren’t there established processes for the development and implementation of rules and regulations applying to a federal bill, and aren’t all of those deliberations required to be publicly released?
 
Yes. But in perhaps the Obama administration’s worst “fumble,” they bypassed just about the entire rule-issuance process.
 

Decision #7: Breaking All the Rules
 
In Part Two of this article, to be published following the Thanksgiving holiday, we will discuss how the federal government’s Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, acted in a precedence-shattering, secretive manner in issuing orders to state Medicaid agencies regarding how to construct the databases.
 
We will also discuss the massive security holes created by the allowance of “telephonic signature,” and the secretaries of State who were left completely in the dark.
 
We will link, post, and discuss the paper trail — and who was involved.
 
And we will discuss the George Soros-funded Demos organization, which helped push the “opt-out” approach to Motor Voter, and which happened to be one of the few entities that had any knowledge of the new databases.
 
Indeed, they happened to have enough knowledge regarding the databases to prepare and publish a report containing state-by-state strategies for taking advantage of them.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29595


« Reply #409 on: January 03, 2014, 08:15:43 AM »

http://capoliticalnews.com/2014/01/02/court-says-secretary-of-state-cannot-refuse-to-allow-counting-of-ballot-measure-signatures/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29595


« Reply #410 on: January 14, 2014, 10:13:58 AM »

HealthCare.gov: Michelle's friends out, Obama campaign donors in. 
Published by: Herman Cain

Change you can believe in.

President Obama always finds someone other than himself to blame when things go wrong, and of course he especially likes to blame private-sector corporations. So never mind that CGI Federal, whose senior executive Toni Townes-Whitley was a college classmate of Michelle Obama's, was hired by the Obama Administration to build HealthCare.gov.  Nothing here is the White House's fault, ever, by definition, and now we learn that CGI Federal is being fired.

After spending all of that money they’ve now come to the conclusion that CGI Federal can’t get the job done. I guess that could make for some awkward conversation at Michelle's next class reunion.

You know who they’re gonna hire instead? They're hiring Accenture, which oh by the way just happened to contribute $280,000 to Obama's re-election campaign. I don't think they wanted me to tell you that, but I can't un-say it now! Sorry, Mr. President.

Now here’s what I know about IT projects, because as many of you know I've worked on my share of them. If CGI Federal has messed it up so badly that they can’t fix it, Accenture is going to have to start all over. They’re not going to be able to go in and take somebody else’s code and fix it. No one in IT does that. It’s gonna require a do-over.

So be ready because more delays and more excuses are coming down the road. It's inevitable. In all my years working in IT, I was never given a project where I was supposed to take somebody else’s code or system design and go in and fix it. You have to start over, and that’s what Accenture is going to do.

So Michelle's friends are out, Barack's contributors are in, and it pays to be connected but it doesn't pay to go shopping for health insurance on HealthCare.gov, because the darn thing still doesn't work.

The Barack Obama presidency. Making your life better through government.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29595


« Reply #411 on: January 18, 2014, 06:17:01 AM »

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304603704579324783339931114
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29595


« Reply #412 on: January 21, 2014, 07:57:10 PM »

What say we to this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/21/citizens-united-anniversary_n_4635014.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29595


« Reply #413 on: January 22, 2014, 05:33:07 PM »



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/18/new-federal-ruling-forbids-states-checking-voters-/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #414 on: January 22, 2014, 05:55:17 PM »


It's obvious that's why president Romney won. Right?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29595


« Reply #415 on: January 27, 2014, 07:06:14 AM »



http://capoliticalnews.com/2014/01/26/officials-admit-california-voting-process-neither-transparent-or-reliable/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29595


« Reply #416 on: February 17, 2014, 06:32:20 AM »


By
Michael B. Mukasey
Updated Feb. 14, 2014 6:35 p.m. ET

There is a worthwhile debate to be had over whether state laws that disenfranchise felons should be changed or even eliminated. There can be an interesting discussion of how the history of such laws affects that debate. But you would not have known that from Eric Holder's treatment of the subject in a Feb. 10 speech at the Georgetown Law Center in Washington.

The U.S. attorney general told us that statistics can be read to show that felon disenfranchisement laws actually promote recidivism. He said that such laws, which vary from state to state, are rooted in outdated notions going back to colonial days (when no one did any voting). He said that they were used during Reconstruction intentionally, and have been used since (whether intentionally or not is left hanging in the air) to deny the vote to blacks—who make up a larger percentage of those convicted of felonies than they do of the general population.

The statistical argument derives from a recent study in Florida that showed a lower recidivism rate for felons whose right to vote had been restored than for those whose right hadn't. However, there is more going on here.

Florida has had, and indeed has broadened, a system that requires felons to go through an application process before their voting rights are restored. Obviously, those who are motivated to navigate such a process self-select as a group less likely to repeat their crimes. Suggesting that the automatic restoration of voting rights to all felons would lower recidivism is rather like suggesting that we can raise the incomes of all college students if we automatically grant them a college degree—because statistics show that people with college degrees have higher incomes than those without them.

The history suggested by the attorney general is just as deeply flawed. A clue to the flaw lies in his failure to call for a federal law barring state felon disenfranchisement statutes. Why would an administration given to bold legislative action at the federal level—given to bold action even without legislation—shrink from calling for such action here?
Enlarge Image

United States Attorney General Eric Holder Reuters

The omission becomes less curious when one considers that the history of felon disenfranchisement statutes is tied up intimately in constitutional history. Most particularly, it is tied up with the history of what are known as the Reconstruction amendments: the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution—the very amendments that ended slavery and set out the basic guarantees of equality for all under state law.

Abolitionists, viewed at the time as radicals, embraced what has been called a philosophy of formal equality. They not only insisted on the liberation and enfranchisement of former slaves, but also supported the disenfranchisement of criminals, rebels and other wrongdoers.

In its first section, the 14th Amendment guarantees due process and equal protection to the residents of all states. Yet its second section directs that states which deny the right to vote to any male citizens over the age of 21 will lose electors for president and vice president (in proportion that those denied the right bear to the whole number of such citizens)—except when such denial is "for participation in rebellion, or other crime."

The Supreme Court has held that this apparent recognition of the legitimacy of felon disenfranchisement in the 14th Amendment insulates the practice against constitutional attack. Even the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude generally, carves out an exception "for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."

That view, to be sure, has its critics, and their arguments are worth considering. For example, they argue that it is one thing to say that states cannot be denied electors for disenfranchising criminals, and quite another to say that the practice otherwise passes muster.

They note that the 14th Amendment's accommodation of gender-based voting distinction—using the population of 21-year-old male citizens as the measure—itself has been overtaken by history. Still, a fair reply would be that it took a constitutional amendment, the 19th, to do it.

The historical evidence suggests that even Reconstruction progressives saw the 14th Amendment's reference to gender as a political necessity and believed that the crime exception was principled. The concern that former slaves would be disenfranchised for trivial offenses was dealt with in the Military Reconstruction Act of 1867, which confined the sanction to felonies—serious crimes.

Rather than deal directly with the evidence, both statistical and historical, Mr. Holder put the issue squarely in terms of race: Because blacks stand convicted of crimes in greater numbers than their proportion of the population would dictate, the effect on them of felon disenfranchisement statutes is disproportionately high; that disproportion is unjust, and the laws should be repealed. The attorney general proposes substituting for current laws and practice what is essentially a transactional standard implicit in the phrase paying one's debt to society: Once the sentence has been served, the fine paid, it is time to make it—as a cleanup-company slogan says—like it never even happened.

Mr. Holder does not urge that we go as far as the states of Maine and Vermont, which bar disenfranchisement on any basis and thus permit convicts to vote from jail (assuming their residency requirements are otherwise in order). But neither does he display anything but contempt for the notion that there is a moral taint that attaches to a felony conviction—a taint that should require that one at least show some brief period of law-abiding existence before full readmission to the polity.

This failure actually hurts his case, because it invites cynicism about his motives. Thus a report in the Washington Post GHC +0.07% ended by citing an academic study showing that if disenfranchised felons had voted in the 2000 election, Al Gore would have been president. That may be true, but it probably doesn't help the attorney general's argument as much as sticking to the facts might have.

Mr. Mukasey served as U.S. attorney general (2007-09) and as a U.S. district judge for the Southern District of New York (1988-2006).

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5525


« Reply #417 on: February 19, 2014, 11:28:49 AM »

James O'Keefe exposes Texas Dems taking government data and using it for partisan, get out the vote operations.

Who has been making that allegation here?



http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/02/19/Exclusive-OKeefe-Busts-Battleground-Texas-Voter-Registration-Scheme
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXKwQI_0kDI

The footage shows Battleground Texas volunteer Jennifer Longoria saying the group uses the phone numbers from voter registration forms in later efforts to boost turnout on election day.

Texas Election Code prohibits the use of, or even the copying of, phone numbers provided by individuals registering to vote.

“Every time we register somebody to vote, we keep their name, address, phone number,” Longoria said.

The video also shows volunteers calling to boost turnout for Wendy Davis's gubernotorial bid.

The new revelations are likely to add to concerns about an apparent culture of data sharing among Democrat-aligned political and nonprofit organizations.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29595


« Reply #418 on: February 25, 2014, 03:02:23 PM »

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/obamas-voter-id-scam-is-busted/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #419 on: February 25, 2014, 04:44:20 PM »


True  crime.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5525


« Reply #420 on: February 25, 2014, 07:42:55 PM »


Try entering a Dem event without 'Voter ID' !

Data-sharing between government agencies and the campaign completes the trifecta of 2012 election scandals, along with IRS targeting and voter fraud.  That doesn't count the ugliest part, Candy Crowley and her debate assist on Benghazi or the most blatant part of election stealing, lie to their face and repeat the lie until everyone has it:  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/  Other than all that, I thought it was a fair contest.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2014, 08:09:10 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29595


« Reply #421 on: March 03, 2014, 01:57:13 PM »

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/371275/biggest-all-time-donors-american-politics-are-jim-geraghty
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29595


« Reply #422 on: March 06, 2014, 04:21:37 AM »

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10202334772388667&set=a.1305462074625.2043820.1172722410&type=1&theater
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29595


« Reply #423 on: March 11, 2014, 04:52:30 PM »

http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/6-100-dead-people-on-nassau-voter-rolls-newsday-analysis-finds-1.6349860
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3790


« Reply #424 on: March 19, 2014, 07:24:39 PM »

I don't know if anyone would recall I asked how can we find voter fraud if we don't ID people who are voting?  How would anyone really know if they are who they claim or even if they are entitled to vote?   This is what I mean:

http://www.westernjournalism.com/illegal-aliens-non-citizens-caught-voting-florida-vast-numbers/

Like Peter King asking for any evidence of unethical use of data acquired by the NSA.   "Not one shred of evidence" he  loves to shout.
So  I'll ask again.  How would any of us know?  How could we know?  How could anyone prove such a thing?  Good luck.

Crimes are committed all day long.   Smart criminals just do it in ways no one can see.   Especially true when no one is looking.  Or no one really cares.  Or those few who do an easily be persuaded to keep their mouths shut.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5525


« Reply #425 on: March 28, 2014, 11:21:18 AM »

Harry Reid used campaign funds to give granddaughter $17,000
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Harry-Reid-Reid-Granddaughter-Reid-Slush-Fund-Elisabeth-Ryan/2014/03/27/id/562124/

Isn't that the same crime that sent James Traficant to prison?  (A Democrat who ripped the Clinton administration ruthlessly in the 1990s.)

Harry Reid is still majority Leader.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #426 on: March 28, 2014, 11:25:32 AM »

Harry Reid used campaign funds to give granddaughter $17,000
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Harry-Reid-Reid-Granddaughter-Reid-Slush-Fund-Elisabeth-Ryan/2014/03/27/id/562124/

Isn't that the same crime that sent James Traficant to prison?  (A Democrat who ripped the Clinton administration ruthlessly in the 1990s.)

Harry Reid is still majority Leader.

I'm sure Eric Holder will get right on it, as soon as the IRS investigation is finished...
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29595


« Reply #427 on: March 28, 2014, 11:27:45 AM »

While those fit here and are quite pertinent, please note from here forward we now have a thread dedicated to corruption.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #428 on: March 28, 2014, 11:29:58 AM »

While those fit here and are quite pertinent, please note from here forward we now have a thread dedicated to corruption.



Harry Reid and corruption probably deserves its' own thread...
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3790


« Reply #429 on: April 02, 2014, 08:06:27 PM »

Anyone care to guess which party these frauds voted for?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/374882/nc-state-board-finds-more-35k-incidents-double-voting-2012-andrew-johnson
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29595


« Reply #430 on: April 03, 2014, 03:28:28 AM »



http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/in-florida-bid-to-cut-voter-rolls-is-set-back.html?emc=edit_th_20140403&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=49641193&_r=0
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3790


« Reply #431 on: April 03, 2014, 05:44:08 AM »

"Bid to cut voter roles" is of course the way the NYT describes this.

It wouldn't surprise me if 1,000,000 voters nationwide are fraudulent.

It can't even be measured.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29595


« Reply #432 on: April 03, 2014, 05:40:02 PM »

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/04/massive-voter-fraud-in-north-carolina-35570-voters-with-same-last-name-and-dob-voted-in-two-states/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29595


« Reply #433 on: April 16, 2014, 06:59:26 AM »

http://capoliticalnews.com/2014/04/15/voter-fraud-easy-in-california-proof/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29595


« Reply #434 on: April 16, 2014, 07:19:06 AM »

second post

http://dickmorris.rallycongress.com/15119/reject-proposal-to-bypass-electoral-college/

Would someone be so kind (BD are you out there?) as to give the argument for the electoral college?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5525


« Reply #435 on: April 18, 2014, 01:35:24 PM »

second post
http://dickmorris.rallycongress.com/15119/reject-proposal-to-bypass-electoral-college/
Would someone be so kind (BD are you out there?) as to give the argument for the electoral college?

Bringing this request forward with a few thoughts. 

a. The central point and purpose of the constitution is to define limits on all rule and majority rule in particular.   Division of powers and super-majorities required on various important things are examples of this.
b. We are a union of states so the is in each contest in each state for who we want to empower as chief executive.
c. Because of the EC, a distribution of support is required to win.
c. In a close election like happened in Florida 2000, imagine that recount fiasco happening simultaneously in all precincts of all 50 states.

To those who oppose the electoral college I would ask, do you oppose the Senate and the Supreme Court as well.  Both are also designed to potentially deny or delay the majority their will.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29595


« Reply #436 on: April 18, 2014, 03:55:43 PM »

"b. We are a union of states so the is in each contest in each state for who we want to empower as chief executive."

EXCELLENT soundbite!
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5525


« Reply #437 on: Today at 12:30:34 PM »

"b. We are a union of states so the is in each contest in each state for who we want to empower as chief executive."

EXCELLENT soundbite!


Cleaning up the wording: 

We are a union of states so there is a contest in each state for who we want to empower as chief executive. 

Then the states's choices are weighted by size of their populations to balance the states' interests with proportional representation of/by/for the people. 

Not a perfect system but better than all the alternatives.

I am also curious what Bigdog thinks of the wisdom of the EC.   


Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!