August 10, 2014

Voter ID laws are a pretty simple concept that enjoy widespread support.  Voter ID laws simply state that anyone showing up to vote at the polls must provide a valid ID of some sort, to prove that they are who they claim to be.

Voter ID laws help prevent and cut down on voter fraud, and help to protect the integrity of elections.  Progressive Democrats abhor voter ID laws, and Attorney General Eric Holder has attacked such laws in multiple states, claiming they are racist and prevent minorities from voting.

But the only thing racist about voter ID laws is the liberal assumption that minorities are somehow unable to obtain some sort of ID.  This despite the fact that most states will offer a simple voter ID card for free, and the ubiquitous nature of ID cards in general society already, as ID cards are required for most business conducted day to day.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter right now:

Attorney General Eric Holder had sued North Carolina over their voter ID law, making his usual claim that the law was racist and discriminatory against minorities, putting an undue burden on them that prevented them from exercising their right to vote.  According toWestern Journalism, a federal District Court in North Carolina thought differently, and flat out rejected Holder’s argument.

Tom Fitton, of Judicial Watch, called this decision a huge setback for Eric Holder’s war against voter ID, saying “It is an embarrassing defeat for the Holder Justice Department. The court’s decision eviscerates Eric Holder’s politicized and racially inflammatory legal assault on commonsense election integrity measures. The court expressly rejected the Department of Justice’s contention that minorities are harmed by commonsense measures that help secure honest elections. The court’s dramatic rejection of Holder’s legal theory shows that that the DOJ’s lawsuit, which was coordinated with political activists at the White House, was always more about cynical political and racial appeals than upholding the law.”

This is huge news, and fits with the continuing trend of court defeats for the administration. Wisconsin’s voter ID law was recently upheld, with similar arguments against it being rejected by the court.

There is nothing racist or discriminatory about requiring voters to prove they are citizens that are properly registered to vote, before allowing them to vote.  The honesty and integrity of our democratic system depends upon it.

Do you think voters should have to show an ID before being allowed to vote?

Tuesday, 09 September 2014 11:51

Republicans and Democrats Working Together to Rewrite the Constitution

Written by  Christian Gomez

• font size
• Print

• E-mail

Many conservative Americans who support a modern-day constitutional convention, a.k.a. a “Convention of the States,” sincerely believe that the states will be able to control what happens should such a convention be convened and that the agenda would be limited to a predetermined “conservative” agenda, such as balancing the federal budget. Yet the evidence continues to mount that this is mere wishful thinking. As a little-publicized meeting late this spring clearly demonstrated, conservative state legislators who fashion themselves the founding fathers of a new convention recognize that they must make their “tent” big enough to include liberal Democrats in order to succeed.

On June 12-13, 2014, the Indiana State Legislature hosted what its organizers termed a “write the rules convention,” composed of both Republicans and progressive Democrats, to prepare for a future Article V “convention of the states.”

This “rules convention” was the product of the Assembly of State Legislatures (ASL), which describes itself as “a bipartisan group of currently serving state legislators from across the country who recognize that the states have a responsibility under federalism to work together to solve problems of national concern.”

Formerly known as the Mount Vernon Assembly and renamed at the June meeting, ASL appears to be the brainchild of Republican State Representative Chris Kapenga of Wisconsin. Both Kapenga’s and ASL’s desired goal is to bring about an amendments convention as provided for in the Constitution’s Article V: “The Congress … on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress.” (Emphasis added.)

Said and Unsaid

The June 12 ASL session opened with prayer and pledge in the House of Representatives Chamber of the Indiana Statehouse, followed by elaboration by Kapenga on some of the background of Article V and how the states can utilize it to amend the Constitution. Asserting that this would be a purely state-led and state-directed process, Kapenga proceeded to quote from Alexander Hamilton’s The Federalist, No. 85, which addresses Article V: “The words of this article are peremptory. The Congress ‘shall call a convention.’ Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body.”

Since “The Federalist Papers are not [the] governing documents of our country,” as Democratic State Representative Raymond Dehn of Minnesota pointed out, Kapenga and other pro Article V convention advocates cannot use the above quote from Hamilton to definitively lay to rest any concerns or fears of potential congressional involvement and influence over an actual Article V convention.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution, which unlike the Federalist Papers is the nation’s primary governing document, specifically states: “The Congress shall have Power … To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or office thereof.” (Emphasis added.)

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution lists the various powers specifically granted to Congress, among which are the power to “establish Post Offices and post Roads,” “declare war,” and “provide and maintain a Navy.” Regarding the latter, since Congress has the power to “provide and maintain a Navy,” Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 grants Congress the power to do what is “necessary and proper” to exercise this power ­— meaning the establishment of naval academies to train officers and sailors; the creation of shipyards to construct, refit, and repair warships; and the hiring and training of engineers to build, design, and operate those vessels. Clause 18 is not limited to only those “foregoing powers” listed in Article I, Section 8, but to “all other powers vested by this Constitution,” including Article V.

This means that under Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 Congress is granted the power to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution” Article V’s constitutional mandate that Congress, “on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments.” Constitutionally, Congress has and will execute all the powers it deems necessary for calling a convention. This would likely include choosing the location and date of the convention, allocation of delegates from the states (whether proportional by population, congressional district, one per state, etc.), the method of ratification for any proposed amendments to the Constitution, and all other preliminary rules associated with the convention.

Put simply, the power to establish such rules resides exclusively with Congress. It is not a state-led process as Kapenga and others in the pro-Article V camp maintain.

Of course, once an Article V convention actually convenes, it would then be free to create its own agenda, including possibly even coming up with a new ratification process, as was the case with the Constitutional Convention of 1787. But this historical fact underscores even more the fact that the states cannot bind the work of the convention.

Speaking about the nature and purpose of the two-day Indianapolis meeting, Kapenga told the state legislators in attendance that their current assembly meeting “does not trigger Article V authority or involvement of Congress, because remember the Article V authority is to amend.” Kapenga continued, “We are not touching amendments at this convention. This is a write the rules convention.” (Emphasis added.)

Kapenga and the other state legislators behind the ASL view their two-day gathering in Indianapolis as already being a “new legislative body” or “convention,” the same type of convention as an Article V convention, which they claim is not a one-time meeting but an ongoing assembly or continuous series of “Conventions of the States.”

Page three of the ASL’s “Committee Responsibility Form” for the Rules and Procedures Committee states:

It should also be clearly stated that we see a Convention of the States as the same legislative body, no matter if convened for the purpo
se of an Article V Convention for Proposing Amendments, or for any other purpose. It is the same precedent as if the Indiana House, for example, was in regular or special session; it is still the same body even though it is convened under a different ­purpose.

According to Kapenga and ASL documents, the June 12-13 Indianapolis meeting was the “same legislative body” as an Article V convention. To them this June 12-13 Indianapolis meeting was a Convention of the States, and is a continuous legislative body just as the houses of state legislatures or the two houses of Congress are as they go from one session to another. Where in Article V of the Constitution does it say that the convention for proposing amendments is an ongoing “legislative body,” one that can convene, meet, and pass resolutions at its own discretion, and only requiring Congress’ approval (at the behest of 34 states) before proposing amendments to the Constitution? The short answer is nowhere.

These claims are nowhere to be found in the text of the Constitution. Yet Kapenga is considered to be one of the “conservative” Republicans involved in this process. If this is what reputed conservatives are claiming about an Article V convention, then how much further will pro-Article-V-convention progressive Democratic supporters go?

Democrats in the Digs

What progressive Democratic supporters, you may ask? Wasn’t this supposed to be a purely conservative Republican effort from start to finish? That’s what the pro-Article-V-convention advocates originally claimed early on in their presentations to numerous Tea Party groups and on popular conservative talk-radio shows. Now, however, their true colors, Red and Blue (Republican and Democrat), are bleeding through as some of those who originally gave the impression that this would be a “conservative” Republican effort are now proudly proposing to work together with the Left and boasting of the Article V movement’s “bipartisanship.”

Of the 109 state legislator delegates shown in the seating chart for the ASL’s Indianapolis “rules convention,” 11 were Democrats. At the end of the two-day meeting, Kapenga promised that “we’re going to change” the political makeup of the ASL, i.e., attract more Democrats. Missouri State Senator Jason Holsman,  a participant in the Indianapolis ASL convention as co-chair of the Rules and Procedures Committee and regarded as the “greenest Democrat” in the Missouri Legislature, stressed the need to bring in and involve more Democrats, minorities, and women. Senator Holsman elaborated on the need to “change the complexion of the room,” a goal that “conservative” Republican Kapenga of Wisconsin shares.

What effect would attracting more Democrats have on the outcome of an Article V Convention of the States? Would it still be limited to a single subject or amendment, such as a balanced budget amendment? After all, ASL views its recent “rules convention” as constituting the “same legislative body” as an actual congressionally authorized Article V ­convention.

Whereas most conservative Republican state legislators favor a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, the inclusion of more liberal Democrats will surely also mean the inclusion of a more liberal progressive agenda. Why else would liberal Democrats participate in an Article V convention unless they expected to make their own desired changes to the Constitution? Would liberal Democratic delegates seek the adoption of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “Second Bill of Rights” that he proposed in his 1944 State of the Union Address? Would they go after the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United, in order to proclaim that “money does not equal speech,” that “corporations are not people,” and that all elections must be publicly financed? This type of campaign finance reform amendment is what left-wing Article V convention groups, such as Wolf-PAC, advocate.

Between 2013 and 2014, 16 state legislatures introduced resolutions requesting that Congress call a convention to propose variations of Wolf-PAC’s campaign finance amendment. The legislatures of Vermont and California passed the nation’s first two Wolf-PAC Article V convention applications in 2014 with two more states, Minnesota and Illinois, passing it in their respective state Senates. In fact, one of the Democratic participants at the ASL’s Indianapolis rules convention was Minnesota State Representative Raymond Dehn, who not only cosponsored SF 17, the Minnesota Senate version of the Wolf-PAC application, but also was the lead sponsor of the House version, HB 276. On the first day of ASL’s Indianapolis meeting, Dehn introduced himself as the “most left” leaning legislator present.

Both Minnesota’s SF 17 and HB 276 that Dehn sponsored read in part:

BE IT RESOLVED by the Legislature of the State of Minnesota that it requests that Congress propose an amendment to the Constitution that shall substantially read as follows:

(1) The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.

(2) Any entity, including any organization or association of one or more persons, established or allowed by the laws of any State, the United States, or any Foreign State shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the people, through Federal, State, or local law.

(3) The privileges of any entity, including any organization or association, shall be determined by the people, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

(4) Federal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process, and that no person gains, as a result of their money, substantially more access or ability to influence in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.

(5) Federal, State, and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.

(6) The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the 1st Amendment.

Dehn’s resolution further affirms itself as an Article V application:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if Congress does not propose the amendment language or substantially similar amendment language as contained in this resolution, the Legislature of the State of Minnesota applies to the Congress of the United States to call a constitutional convention for the purpose of proposing the amendment language or substantially similar amendment language as contained in this resolution as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. [Emphasis added.]

Despite Kapenga’s denial that a “Convention of the States” and a “constitutional convention” are the same thing, the text of this Article V application, cosponsored and introduced by a leading ASL delegate, demonstrates otherwise.

What effect would a constitutional amendment such as the one above sponsored by Dehn (“no rights under this Constitution”) have on the legal standing of (say) Hobby Lobby? On June 30, 2010, this Christian-owned corporation won a landmark decision in the Supreme Court over its refusal to participate in the Obama­Care mandate requiring it to provide abortion-inducing contraceptive drugs for its employees. Under Dehn’s Wolf-PAC amendment, Hobby Lobby and other corporations like it would have no constitutionally protected rights. Are these the type of architects we want to be amending or rewriting the Constitution?

Despite the inclusion of pro-Wolf-PAC supporters such as Dehn in the ASL’s ranks, Representative Chris Kapenga and Senator Jason Holsman are eager to invite even more Democrats to further change the future makeup of the room. Why such a bipartisan eagerness to invite the Left
to help make changes to the nation’s Constitution? The answer might lie in an e-mail from Michael Farris’ Convention of States, a project of Mark Meckler’s Citizens for Self Governance (CSG).

In an e-mail from Eric Burk, the Grassroots Coordinator for CSG’s Convention of States Project, Burk expressly states: “The plain and simple truth is that unless we can get both support from Republicans and Democrats, we cannot hope to get our application passed in 34 states.”

If the Right is making such bipartisan concessions now, before an actual Article V convention has convened, imagine how much further they would be willing to compromise at a second constitutional convention. What exactly would the results of a new, modern-day, “great compromise” be?

Those who love the Constitution should be wary of Article V convention advocates who all too easily give false assurances as to the safety of such a convention. The Constitution need not be amended, but rather should be defended by upholding it. Changing the Constitution will not correct man’s failure to properly interpret or willingly obey it. Only through an informed electorate and the educational efforts of grassroots constitutionalist organizations dedicated to the preservation of the Constitution will this latest bipartisan assault on the Constitution be thwarted, assuring the continued blessings of liberty for America’s posterity.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/19082-republicans-and-democrats-working-together-to-rewrite-the-constitution

VIDEO: Sen. Mike Lee condemns Democrats for trying to alter the First Amendment | Ben Swann Truth In Media.

WASHINGTON D.C., September 10, 2014 – On Tuesday, Senator Mike Lee (R- Utah) gave an impassioned speech before Congress detailing the threat S.J. Res 19, a new proposed constitutional amendment, poses to the  First Amendment.

If passed, the proposed amendment would grant Congress and states the power to regulate the raising and spending of money with respect to federal and state elections. Lee blasted the Democrats attempt to limit free speech and said our political system “keeps us free only to the extent that individuals rich and poor alike are able to say what they want and join together to form voluntary associations for the purpose of influencing the outcome of elections.” You can watch the full video here:

http://benswann.com/video-sen-mike-lee-condemns-democrats-for-trying-to-alter-the-first-amendment/

Barack Obama is well known for attacking voter ID laws, contending they are being pushed “by racist Republicans who want to disenfranchise blacks.”

But now there are allegations claiming secure-ballot advocates are targeting transgenders.

It was the Williams Institute that declared in a statement Tuesday that transgenders may face “possible disenfranchisement.”

The institute said a study by its own Jody L. Herman and others found, “Many transgender people who have transitioned do not have identification that accurately reflects their correct gender.”

Herman said lawmakers “should not overlook the consequences of enacting stricter voter ID laws on transgender voters.”

“Election officials must consider the potential impact of these laws in the upcoming November elections. Voter ID laws create a unique barrier for transgender people who would otherwise be eligible to vote.”

The organization said that in 10 states voter ID laws may create “substantial barriers to voting, naming Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin.

In those 10 states, there are about 84,000 people “who have transitioned” and are eligible to vote, the organization said.

“An estimated 28 percent of the transgender voting-eligible population in those 10 states has no identification or records that accurately reflect their gender. Transgender people of color, youth, students, people with low incomes, and people with disabilities are likely overrepresented in that group,” the institute said.

“In order for these 24,000 voting-eligible transgender people to obtain the updated IDs required to vote in the November 2014 general election, they must comply with the requirements for updating their state-issued or federally issued IDs. These requirements vary widely by state or federal agency and can be difficult and costly to meet,” the group continued.

“Some voters may not have the means or the ability to present the required voter identification for a variety of reasons, such as poverty, disability, or religious objection. Transgender people have unique barriers to obtaining accurate IDs needed to vote. As these 10 states begin planning for their fall elections, educating poll workers is crucial in order to ensure that transgender voters in their states have fair access to the ballot,” said Herman.

What do YOU think? Do voter ID laws discriminate against transgenders? Sound off in today’s WND poll!

The Journal report said Obama stated earlier this year, “The real voter fraud is people trying to deny our rights by making voting harder in the first place.”

The report went on to explain that support for voter ID laws is strong “and transcends gender, party and even race.” It cited a Fox News poll in which 70 percent of respondents – including 55 percent of Democrats, 91 percent of Republicans, 66 percent of independents, 70 percent of men, 71 percent of women, 75 percent of whites and 51 percent of blacks – expressed support for laws that “require voters to show a valid form of state- or federally-issued photo identification to prove U.S. citizenship before being allowed to vote.”

The results comport with those of other polls, the report said.

A 2012 Washington Post poll, for example, asked if people should be “required to show official, government-issued photo identification – such as a driver’s license – when they cast ballots on Election Day.” Seventy-four percent of all respondents and 65 percent of blacks said yes.

There doesn’t seem to be a major problem with transgenders being able to afford an ID. The left-leaning Huffington Post reported: “Not only do gay people earn more than the average American does, gay people are more likely to be employed, they have more money in savings and they are better at managing debt, according to a Nov. 14 survey of more than 1,0000 gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people by Prudential.”

The report said the “average LGBT household earns $61,500 annually, which surpasses the average national household income by more than $10,000.”

The American Civil Liberties Union offers a “fact sheet” that contends voter ID laws “deny the right to vote to thousands of registered voters” who “cannot afford to pay for the required documents needed to secure a government-issued photo ID.”

The report asserted there is “no credible evidence that in-person impersonation voter fraud – the only type of fraud that photo IDs could prevent – is even a minor problem.”

But WND has reported on a wide range of allegations of voter fraud over recent years. In Pennsylvania in 2012, Obama got 19,605 votes in 59 voting divisions to zero for Mitt Romney. In 100 precincts in Ohio, Obama got 99 percent of the vote.

Talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh declared: “Third-world, tin-horn dictators don’t get [these percentages]. I mean, the last guy that got this percentage of the vote was Saddam Hussein, and the people that didn’t vote for him got shot. This just doesn’t happen. Even Hugo Chavez [of Venezuela] doesn’t get 100 percent or 99 percent of the vote.”

See the BIG LIST of vote fraud reports coming out of the 2012 election.

About that time, WND columnist Barry Farber wrote that a “single fraudulent vote is an ‘attack’ on our democratic system.”

“Massive voter fraud is a massive attack. The website Watchdog.com tells us that a group known as the Virginia Voters Alliance counted 44,000 voters registered in Maryland as well as Virginia. An additional 40 to 60 thousand dead voters were found to be on the active voters list in that one state of Virginia, according to the Social Security Administration. It’s not just Chicago any more,” he wrote.

He related a joke about voting rolls and procedures.

“In the days before voter fraud became unfunny, they told about the two men from a Democratic clubhouse in Chicago out in a graveyard late one night copying names from tombstones for voting purposes. One of the men noticed the other was falling row after row behind. ‘Hurry it up, pal,’ he said. ‘What’s wrong?’

“His buddy replied, ‘This is one of those tough Polish names. I’ve got to figure it out.’

“‘Forget about that one,’ stage-whispered his friend. ‘Just skip it and move on to the next one,’” Farber wrote.

“‘Whaddaya mean, ‘Move on’?’ he answered indignantly. ‘This guy has as much right to vote as all the rest in here!’”

The National Conference of State Legislatures details all of the voter ID laws in the nation, ranging from states with strict photo ID requirements to those with no requirements at all.

“Proponents see increasing requirements for identification as a way to prevent in-person voter impersonation and increase public confidence in the election process. Opponents say there is little fraud of this kind, and the burden on voters unduly restricts the right to vote and imposes unnecessary costs and administrative burdens on elections administrators,” the report explains.

Epic change endangers U.S. election validity
Bob Unruh
Wed
, 10 Sep 2014 00:07:24 GMT

Assault and Flattery: The Truth About the Left and Their War on Women – Katie Pavlich – Page 1.

“Women of America, you are being lied to. Manipulated. Used. By the mainstream media and the Democratic Party – as if there’s a difference – both of which tell you they have your best interests at heart. They don’t. The reason I know this is because I’ve seen firsthand how they treat women who don’t toe their line,” I write in my new book Assault and Flattery: The Truth About the Left and Their War on Women, in bookstores today. “Many of you have been persuaded that there is a ‘war on women’ being waged by the other political party. In fact, the real story is very different.”
It’s time someone pointed out the hypocrisy and lies coming from the left about women. Democrats have run the conversation for too long and I’m out to debunk the sacred cows of the so-called Republican War on Women.

If liberals really believe women can protect themselves, then why do they oppose a woman’s right to carry a handgun for self defense? If Hillary Clinton is the ultimate female role model, then why has she built her political career on her husband’s philandering while silencing his many female whistleblowers? If Barack Obama is the most pro-woman president in history, then why does he seek to make women completely dependent on the government? If the right to an abortion gives women personal autonomy and sexual freedom, then why are its debilitating aftereffects overlooked? And finally, if Republicans are so insensitive to women, then why is the sexual lechery of politicians from Ted Kennedy to Bill Clinton defended, justified, covered up, or ignored?
Those on the left love to talk about women in one way, but in reality treat women in an entirely opposite, demeaning way full of broken promises and false hope. Through research, in-depth interviews and personal stories, I reveal the shocking truth about the Democratic Party’s anti-woman agenda on issues like gun control, healthcare, the economy, sexual assault and more.
When President Obama ran for reelection in 2012, he didn’t do so based on his record but instead he propagated one of the left’s most damaging and egregious offenses against women by promoting the false idea that reliance on government is empowering. I watched the 2012 campaign up close and the Democratic strategy hinged on women, more than any other campaign in history, by distorting the truth and lying about contraception bans. After spending weeks on the campaign trail, one thing was clear: Democrats don’t want women to be independent, they want them to be dependent. Like many Democrats before him, Obama sold victimhood as empowerment for votes by scaring women into thinking government is the answer to their problems and that they probably can’t survive without it. Democrats will do the same in the 2014 and 2016 elections.

Here’s the reality. Reliance on government doesn’t provide a life of success and independence, instead it provides one of disappointment, hopeless dependency and broken promises. Democrats won’t tell women that because after all, it would expose their phony platform.
The way Democrats have repeatedly defined women by the pills they take, by their body parts and as victims of their gender, is abhorrent. Women should be appalled at liberals classifying them in such a blatantly sexist, repulsive way and they should fight back.
I encourage women, fathers, husbands, sons, and boyfriends, to read my book so they can understand the true manipulation of women and exactly what side of the political aisle it’s coming from. If you want to know the truth about the Left andtheir war on women, that’s what Assault and Flattery is all about.

The History of Wall Street’s Unspoken Relationship to Nazi Germany: Dragon Teeth to Be Planted All Over Europe Again : Truth Frequency Radio.

The History of Wall Street’s Unspoken Relationship to Nazi Germany: Dragon Teeth to Be Planted All Over Europe Again

Truth Frequency Radio
Sep 01, 2014

By Yuriy Rubtsov

Strategic Culture Foundation

Many media outlets compare the contemporary situation in Europe with the days before WWII. I would like to make an important correction here. Now we are watching the West fostering another Nazi regime represented by Kiev junta and it makes remember the second half of the 1930s when it did the very same thing cooperating with Germany turned into a fascist state.

Of course, the Ukraine we know today cannot measure up to Hitler’s Germany. But the first blow is half the battle. The running amok Fuhrer started as an unknown corporal preaching xenophobia and revenge.

It’s an open secret that Adolf Hitler was supported by the United States. The US penetration was significant, especially its cooperation with the German war industry. By 1933 the United States controlled key branches of Germany’s economy, as well as several large banks such as Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Bank, etc.

Big business started to trust Hitler. Those were the days of affluence for theNational Socialist German Workers’ Party as funds from abroad began to pour in. Thanks to large donations from Fritz Thyssen’s group including the United Steelworks (Vereinigte Stahlwerke AG), I.G. Farbenindustrie AG (Interessen-Gemeinschaft Farbenindustrie AG) and mining industry tycoon Emil Kirdorf the party received 6,4 million votes to become the second largest in the Reichstag (parliament). Hjalmar Schacht (22 January 1877 – 3 June 1970), a German economist, banker, liberal politician, and co-founder in 1918 of the German Democratic Party, became the key connecting link between German industry and foreign donors.

British business and banking interests also started to channel donations to the Nazi party. On January 4, 1932 Montague Norman, the Governor of the Bank of England from 1920 to 1944, met Hitler and German ChancellorFranz von Papen to conclude a secret accord on providing funds for the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. The US was also represented at this meeting. Both Dulles brothers were present. Western historians shy away from mentioning the fact. John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles were politically connected Wall Street lawyers, servants of corporate power, who led the United States into an unseen war that decisively shaped today’s world.

It is worth noting, that during the 1950s, when the Cold War was at its peak, the two immensely powerful Dulles brothers led the United States into a series of foreign adventures whose effects are still shaking the world. John Foster Dulles was Secretary of State while his brother, Allen Dulles, was director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Federal elections were held in Germany on 5 March 1933. As a result of lavish donations coming in from abroad, the ruling Nazi Party led by Adolf Hitler, who was appointed Chancellor on January 30, 1933, registered a large increase in votes emerging as the largest party by far. Nevertheless they failed to obtain an absolute majority in their own right and needed the votes of their coalition partner, the German National People’s Party (DNVP), for a Reichstag majority.

The new German government was treated extremely favorably by US and UK ruling circles. Western democracies kept silent when Berlin refused to pay reparations. Hjalmar Schacht, President of the Reichsbank and Minister of Economics, went to the United States in May 1933 to meet President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and leading Wall Street bankers. Germany was granted a $1 billion credit. And in June, during a visit to Norman in London, Schacht requested an addition $2 billion in loans as well as a reduction and eventual cessation of payment on old loans. Thus, the Nazis got something that the previous government could not.

In the summer of 1934, Britain signed the Anglo-German Transfer Agreement, which became one of the foundations of British policy towards the Third Reich, and by the end of the 1930′s, Germany developed into Britain’s primary trading partner. Schroeder’s bank turned into Germany and Great Britain’s main agent, and in 1936, its New York branch merged with a Rockefeller holding to create the investment bank «Schroeder, Rockefeller and Co.», which the New York Times described as «economic-propagandist axis of Berlin-Rome».

The ‘Secret Memorandum’ was issued by Adolf Hitler in August 1936. The memorandum went out only to a few senior Nazi leaders and its contents – information about the Four-Year Plan – was formally announced to the party’s faithful in September 1936 at the party rally in Nuremberg. The Secret Memorandum stated that in four years Germany was to develop capable combat-ready armed forces and its economy was to be mobilized to meet the needs of war. As he admitted to himself, Hitler viewed foreign credit as the financial basis for his four-year plan, so this didn’t raise the slightest alarm.

In August 1934, American oil giant Standard Oil purchased 730,000 acres of land in Germany and built large oil refineries that supplied the Nazis with oil. At the same time, the United States secretly provided Germany with the most modern equipment for its airplane factories, which were slated to produce Germany’s military aircraft.

In turn, Germany received a large number of patents from several American companies including Pratt and Whitney, Douglas, and the Bendix Corporation, and the “Junkers-87″ dive-bomber was built using purely American technology. As the war broke out, the monopolies stuck to the good old tried-and-true rule – nothing personal, only business. By 1941, when the Second World War was in full swing, American investment in the German economy totaled $475 million: Standard Oil invested $120 million alone, General Motors — $35 million, ITT — $30 million, and Ford — $17.5 million.

What motivated the interest of Western business in the growing might of Nazi Germany?

The goal was to direct Hitler to the East involving a German invasion of Russia. The conquest of Lebensraum («living space») was for Hitler and the rest of the National Socialists the most important German foreign policy goal. At his first meeting with the leading Generals and Admirals of the Reich («Empire») on February 3, 1933, Hitler spoke of “conquest of Lebensraum” in the East and ruthless ‘Germanization’ as his two ultimate foreign policy objectives.

For Hitler, the land which would provide sufficient Lebensraum for Germany was the Soviet Union, which in Hitler eyes was both a nation that possessed vast and rich agricultural land and was inhabited by what Hitler considered as SlavicUntermenschen (sub-humans) ruled over by what he regarded as a gang of blood-thirsty, but grossly incompetent “Jewish revolutionaries”. These people were not “Germanizable” in his eyes; only the soil was.

The US and Britain, which were firmly opposed to the rise of Communism in the Soviet Union, tacitly endorsed Hitler’s “conquest of Lebensraum” in the East, as initially stated in Mein Kampf:

“We National Socialists consciously draw a line under the direction of our foreign policy war. We begin where we ended six centuries ago. We stop the perpetual Germanic march towards the south and west of Europe, and have the view on the country in the east. We finally put the colonial and commercial policy of the pre-war and go over to the territorial policy of the future. But if we speak today in Europe of new land, we primarily point to Russia and the border states”

In turn, the policy of appeasement was implemented by Western countries in the 1930s against a background of financial and economic cooperation of Anglo-American business interests with Nazi Germany.

In October 1930, Germany withdrew from both the Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments of 1932–1934 (sometimes named the World Disarmament Conference or Geneva Disarmament Conference) and the League of Nations.

In March 1936, Hitler ordered his troops to openly re-enter the Rhineland which had been demilitarized under the Versailles Treaty.

In March 1938 Austria was annexed.

The West did not react.

Fall Grün (Operation Green), a German military plan to occupy Czechoslovakia, was approved by Hitler in December 1937. The execution of Operation Green was called off after the Munich Pact was concluded between England, France, Italy and Nazi Germany on September 30, 1938.

While Hitler signed the Munich agreement along with Arthur Neville Chamberlain, Édouard Daladier and Benito Mussolini,  the operation to invade Czechoslovakia prevailed. On October 21 he ordered to start preparations for the military annexation of the rest of Czechoslovakia and the Klaipeda Region (also known as the Memel Territory) which had been part of Lithuania since 1923.

In March 1939, Germany delivered an ultimatum to Poland demanding renegotiation of the Danzig agreement. The Polish Corridor (also known as Danzig Corridor, Corridor to the Sea or Gdansk Corridor) was a territory located in the region of Pomerelia (eastern Pomerania, formerly part of West Prussia), which provided the Second Republic of Poland (1920–1939) with access to the Baltic Sea, thus dividing the bulk of Germany from the province of East Prussia. The Free city of Danzig (now the Polish city of Gdansk) was separate from both Poland and Germany.

But Memel and Danzig were not the ultimate goal of Nazi Germany. Adolph Hitler was fully aware that nobody in the West had any intention to stand in his way. On April 1939 he secretly ordered Poland to be attacked on September 1.

With the seizure of Czechoslovakia, Hitler’s duel-track policy was an open secret even for the most shortsighted politicians and diplomats. The Soviet Union still cherished hope to build a collective system of security in Europe. It managed to make London and Paris start talks on creating a really effective alliance to counter the aggressor. But these talks were to reveal that the Western partners were reluctant to hinder Hitler’s expansionary policy to the East. Sir Alexander Cadogan (Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office) cited Chamberlain saying he would rather resign the premiership than conclude an agreement with the Soviets.

When Germany attacked Poland and the Second World War started, Western leaders pointed their finger at both the Soviet Union and Germany which signed the Non-Aggression Pact of August 23, 1939. Supported by a choir of propaganda, they said it was not the Western appeasement policy, but rather the USSR-Germany Non-Aggression Pact which triggered the war.

In the wake of World War II, neither London, nor Washington, nor Paris want to hear the truth about these historical events. They signed the Nuremberg Trial verdict that found Germany guilty of grave crimes and violations of international law and the laws of war, without acknowledging who was behind Nazi Germany?  The political and financial elites of the United States, Great Britain and France were directly involved in fostering Nazi regime. They incited Hitler to move east.

The West has never recognized its responsibility for supporting Hitler’s regime.

In today’s context, it has does its utmost to prevent Russia’s return on the world stage as a leading actor.

Today it is fostering the ulcer of Nazism and xenophobia emerging right in front of our very eyes. To hide the truth it circulates the Washington-invented and Europe-inculcated story about “Russian aggression” against Ukraine.

Russia is demonized and provoked into direct confrontation with a view to triggering its involvement in Ukraine’s internal conflict.

While the Kiev junta is not “in the same league” as Germany’s Nazi regime, history shows that the ulcer of Nazism combined with the thrust of Russophobia is gaining momentum. And sooner or later it may be beyond the control of those who encouraged it in the first place.

The slogan “Ukraine above all” sounds  very much like a remake of Nazi Germany’s “Deutschland über alles”, (Germany above all). “Ukraine above all”  is being used to justify the crimes committed by Ukraine forces in Novorossiya.

Edited by Global Research

• Share
• Share
• Share
• Share
• Share
• Share

About The Author

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/08/30/maryland-sheriff-to-feds-try-and-take-our-guns-and-youll-get-a-civil-war/

0SHARES

Share on Facebook Tweet on Twitter

Early last year, as Americans feared that the federal government would enact unconstitutional anti-gun measures via executive edict, support for the Constitution came from some unlikely places. Even in Oregon, a Democrat stronghold in elections, Linn County Sheriff Tim Mueller flat-out declared that he and his office would refuse to enforce any such unconstitutional federal laws or regulations.

 

Mueller wrote,

“We are Americans. We must not allow, nor shall we tolerate, the actions of criminals, no matter how heinous the crimes, to prompt politicians to enact laws that will infringe upon the liberties of responsible citizens who have broken no laws.”

Mueller later stated,

“We’re restricted and prohibited from enforcing all types of federal laws, including immigration laws. It would be unreasonable for anyone to think that I would enforce a federal firearms law.”

Since then, anti-gun crusaders have slowed down amidst fierce push-back from patriots. Still, patriotic law enforcers are willing to speak out.

Wicomico County Sheriff Mike Lewis, a sheriff in the state of Maryland, recently reminded the citizens of his county that he will not violate the Constitution and warned the federal government that any attempt to disarm Americans will result in an all-out Civil War.

“I made a vow and a commitment,” Lewis said. “As long as I am sheriff of this county, I will not allow the federal government to come in here and strip my citizens of the right to bear arms.”

Sheriff Lewis is mindful of keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous felons, but also explained, “[W]e do not need to strip law abiding citizens of their Second Amendment right to bear arms. That I get upset over. I really do.”

Sheriff Lewis also added a stern warning to the federal government about what will happen if they try to disarm the law-abiding populace:

“I can tell you this,” Lewis said, “if they attempt to do that, it will be an all-out civil war. No question about it.”

It’s encouraging to see that even as federal lawmakers and supposed federal law enforcers forget their duty to preserve liberty on behalf of the American people, rampant tyranny is bound to be checked by local authorities and the will of a fierce American population that is armed and unwilling to acquiesce to tyrants.

(Video courtesy of conservativetribune.com)

[vimeo 102416104 w=500 h=281]

http://rt.com/news/182472-israel-holocaust-gaza-war/

Holocaust survivors pen open letter condemning Israel’s Gaza war

Published time: August 24, 2014 17:26

Get short URL

Palestinians look at the remains of a commercial center, which witnesses said was hit by an Israeli air strike on Saturday, in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip August 24, 2014 (Reuters / Ibraheem Abu Mustafa)

Tags

Over 300 survivors and descendants of the Holocaust have published an open letter condemning what they call Israel’s “genocide” in Gaza. http://ijsn.net/gaza/survivors-and-descendants-letter/
The letter slamming the “massacre of Palestinians in Gaza and the ongoing occupation and colonization of historic Palestine” was signed by 327 descendants and survivors of the Nazi genocide and placed by the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network as an advertisement in the New York Times.
1The letter also condemns politicians and opinion writers who have, the signatories say, openly called for the “genocide of Palestinians” in what they say is an “extreme, racist dehumanization of Palestinians in Israeli society.”
The survivors point to the death of more than 2,100 Palestinians in Israel’s campaign, many of whom are children and the bombing of UN shelters, homes, hospitals and universities. On the Israeli side, 68 people have been killed, mainly soldiers.
The letter concludes by calling the Gaza campaign “genocide of Palestinian people” and demands an end to the Israeli blockade of the tiny strip of land.

Hollywood against Hamas

The letter was published just moments after 190 influential people in Hollywood put their names on a statement condemning the actions of Hamas, saying the organization “cannot be allowed to rain rockets on Israeli cities”.

A general view of the rubble of a residential tower, which witnesses said was destroyed in an Israeli air strike, is seen in Gaza City August 24, 2014 (Reuters / Mohammed Salem)

It was published by the Creative Community for Peace, which was founded in 2011 and aims to bring together “prominent members of the entertainment industry to counter the cultural boycott against Israel and promote an accurate image of the Jewish state.”
The list included actors Minnie Driver, Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger, although the vast majority of actors did not put their names to the statement.
The statement referred to Article 7 of Hamas’ charter which says, “There is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!” which they say reflects Hamas’ true nature.
However, the statement is also headlined “Commitment to justice and peace”.
Hamas cannot be allowed to “hold its own people hostage. Hospitals are for healing, not for hiding weapons. Schools are for learning, not for launching missiles. Children are our hope not our human shields,” it reads.
Israel tightened its blockade of Gaza in 2007 after Hamas, which rejects Israel’s right to exist, took control of the territory, having won elections the year before and ousted political rivals Fatah.
Tel-Aviv’s operation Protective Edge which started in early July was triggered by rocket attacks by the military wing of Hamas on Israeli. Hamas has been shelling Israel’s south with barrage of rockets, some of which made it as far as the capital’s metropolitan area.
Since then, over 17,000 homes have been destroyed or damaged beyond repair in the Gaza Strip, making around 100,000 Palestinians homeless, since the war began on July 8, according to UN estimates.
Egypt called on Israel and the Palestinians on Saturday to halt hostilities and resume peace talks, but both sides kept up attacks.

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s Government Collapses, PM Yatsenyuk Resigns | Zero Hedge http://ow.ly/2KIBwc

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s Government Collapses, PM Yatsenyuk Resigns

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 07/24/2014 15:36 -0400

• Ukraine

As if Ukraine was not struggling through enough turmoil currently, Bloomberg reports that the fragile coalition government has collapsed after two parties quit. The UDAR and Svoboda parties said they’d leave the government and seek a snap parliamentary ballot. Tempers have been fraying recently as numerous brawls have broken out in parliament ahead of President Poroshenko’s pledge to call elections this year. All we have to do now is find out who Washington would like to see in power? The end result: Prime Minister Yatsenyuk just resigned. The big question now is what will the IMF do about the remaining tranches of its loans? Via BBG:

• *YATSENYUK RESIGNS
• *YATSENYUK SAYS HE RESIGNS BECAUSE OF COALITION COLLAPSE
• *YATSENYUK SAYS HE WON’T CALL FOR A NEW COALITION
• *YATSENYUK SAYS HE RESIGNS ALSO BECAUSE GOVT LAWS FAILED TO PASS
• *UKRAINE SPEAKER TURCHYNOV CALLS FOR INTERIM PREMIER

How The Ukrainian government has settled these problems in the past.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06AahX-gcbI]
As Bloomberg reports,

Ukraine’s coalition collapsed after two parties quit during a months-long pro-Russian insurgency in the nation’s east that downed a Malaysian Air jet last week.
 
The UDAR and Svoboda parties said they’d leave the government and seek a snap parliamentary ballot, according to statements today on their websites. Under the constitution, the former Soviet republic has 30 days to form a new coalition or it must call early elections. The existing cabinet will remain in place in the meantime.
 
Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk’s government, took over the country in February after pro-European street protests prompted Kremlin-backed President Viktor Yanukovych to flee to Russia. Yanukovych’s successor, billionaire Petro Poroshenko, had pledged to call parliamentary elections this year.
 
“We will probably have snap parliamentary elections at the end of October,” Yuriy Yakymenko, the head of political research at the Razumkov Center, said by phone from Kiev today. “This option was probably agreed on by political parties seeking elections and the president.”
 
The government and the current parliament will keep working until new institutions are formed, he said. Olga Lappo, Yatsenyuk’s spokeswoman, declined to comment when reached by phone today.

*  *  *
Ukrainian bonds are tumbling on the news…

White House bribing health insurance companies to keep rates down ahead of midterms
Written by Allen West on July 16, 2014

It was the line from The Godfather that will never be forgotten: “I’m gonna make you an offer you can’t refuse.” The Chicago thugocracy of Barack Hussein Obama took that tactic with health insurance companies to make them swallow Obamacare in the first place, and is now quietly bribing them to “postpone” rate hikes scheduled to come out right before the midterms.
According to Forbes.com, ” Hidden in the midst of a 436-page regulatory update, and written in pure bureaucratese, the Department of Health and Human Services asked that insurance companies limit the looming premium increases for 2015 health plans. But don’t worry, HHS hinted: we’ll bail you out on the taxpayer’s dime if you lose money. No wonder there wasn’t a press release. The White House is playing politics with Americans’ health care—and they’re bribing health insurance companies to play along.”
Ok, let me clarify: the Obama administration has sneaked in a regulatory rule update asking health insurance companies not to do their job accurately if it means higher insurance premiums. After all Obama — aka Vito Corleone — stated Obamacare would bring about an average reduction of $2500 to healthcare premiums. Now, here is the offer the insurance companies can’t refuse: “even if you’re losing money, we’ll square it away for you” — with taxpayer dollars of course.
So in the long run, the hard-working American middle-income family gets screwed either way! Either they’ll have to pay higher premiums or pay the government through higher taxes — such as Obama’s desired higher gas taxes — in order to compensate the insurance companies. And here we thought Obama REALLY didn’t like those insurance companies.
Now, silly me, I thought bribery was a felony offense. Oops, there I go again using logic and common sense when assessing the Obama administration — heck, they’re having problems with computer hard drives, bribery is just par for the course.
And to think the Washington Post just gave President Obama three more “pinocchios” for lying. Nah, none of this matters – it’s certainly not “impeachable.” It’s just liberal progressive socialist politics as usual — fear, intimidation, coercion, lies and deception. Can you imagine what would be happening if this were a revelation occurring under a Republican president?
But be careful, you don’t want to be accused of racial animus because you’re questioning the president’s bribery policy. And I don’t think the U.S. Department of Justice will be investigating this, do you?
Why is all of this happening now? Why it’s simple. There’s an election coming in November 2014 and the last thing Obama, his personal consigliere Valerie Jarrett and the Democrats want is for 2015 healthcare insurance premium increases to be announced in September. And Obama accuses everyone else of playing politics.
As Forbes reports, “typically, insurance companies release their premium rates between summer and early fall—i.e., right before voters cast their ballots in November. If premiums skyrocket—which looks increasingly likely—then voters won’t look too kindly on Senators and Representatives who voted for Obamacare and created this problem. Hence the White House’s desperate damage control. It almost worked: No one noticed when the regulations were first released. In fact, it took days for any news outlet to find the language and then translate it into readable English. TownHall.com figured it out first. The Los Angeles Times then reported that “hold[ing] down premium increases for next year” is a “top priority” for President Obama since “rates will be announced ahead of this fall’s congressional elections.” Wow, give the LA Times a Scooby Snack for getting that one right!
Forbes says “even if the healthcare insurance industry doesn’t want to play along, it’s still in these companies’ best interests to assent to the administration’s “request.” Under Obamacare, insurers are so heavily regulated that they have to play nice with the bureaucrats who call the shots. The president isn’t the only government official who carries a big stick. If insurance companies don’t give in, regulators have powerful ways to make life hard for them. A shrewd CEO doesn’t need to look far to see what might happen if his company opts out. This administration already has a reputation for strong-arming dissenting businesses in other industries.”
Don’t believe how bad it could be? Just ask the coal industry and the small community banks. Of course, this will once again be dismissed and the White House may still get away with its attempted sleight of hand. Technically, the regulations don’t force health insurance companies to hold down their premium increases. But the White House isn’t asking nicely. Does it ever?
If the GOP can awake from its stupor and acknowledge the other side doesn’t play nice, perhaps they’ll start winning elections. This is the politics of Moose and Rocco, and exactly what Americans consented to when they voted to have Chicago come to Washington D.C.
P.S. Hillary is from Chicago too.
Tags: Obamacare
Read more at http://allenbwest.com/2014/07/white-house-bribing-health-insurance-companies-keep-rates-ahead-midterms/#cVGlSKSsQPyfvk7c.99
via White House bribing health insurance companies to keep rates down ahead of midterms | Allen B. West – AllenBWest.com.

Read more at http://allenbwest.com/2014/07/immoral-hypocrisy-democrats-late-term-abortion-bill/#V4IyT5o7ofDvpjmp.99

IRS Official Whose Emails Were “Lost” Visited White House More Than 30 Times
Katie Pavlich | Jun 20, 2014

Last night on The Kelly File Chief Counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice Jay Sekulo revealed that the former chief of staff to former IRS Commissioner Steven Miller, Nikole Flax, visited the White House 35 times after talking with former head of tax exempt groups Lois Lerner about working to criminally prosecute conservative tea party groups for “lying” about political activity. At the White House, Flax met with a top Obama aid during some of those visits. This entire exchange is worth your time.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHyWUvjf23I&w=560&h=315] The email discussed in the segment above is detailed in this previously reported story, along with Lerner’s contact with Democrat Elijah Cummings and suggestions from former FEC Attorney Larry Noble and Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse that conservative groups should be targeted for criminal prosecution in order to “make an impact and they [conservative groups] wouldn’t feel so comfortable doing the stuff.”
“I got a call today from Richard Pilger Director Elections Crimes Branch at DOJ … He wanted to know who at IRS the DOJ folk s [sic] could talk to about Sen. Whitehouse idea at the hearing that DOJ could piece together false statement cases about applicants who “lied” on their 1024s –saying they weren’t planning on doing political activity, and then turning around and making large visible political expenditures. DOJ is feeling like it needs to respond, but want to talk to the right folks at IRS to see whether there are impediments from our side and what, if any damage this might do to IRS programs. I told him that sounded like we might need several folks from IRS,” Lerner wrote in a May 8, 2013 email to former Nikole C. Flax, who was former-Acting IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller’s chief of staff.
“I think we should do it – also need to include CI [Criminal Investigation Division], which we can help coordinate. Also, we need to reach out to FEC. Does it make sense to consider including them in this or keep it separate?” Flax responded on May 9, 2013.
“As I mentioned yesterday — there are several groups of folks from the FEC world that are pushing tax fraud prosecution for c4s who report they are not conducting political activity when they are (or these folks think they are). One is my ex-boss Larry Noble (former General Counsel at the FEC), who is now president of Americans for Campaign Reform. This is their latest push to shut these down. One IRS prosecution would make an impact and they wouldn’t feel so comfortable doing the stuff,” she wrote. “So, don’t be fooled about how this is being articulated – it is ALL about 501(c)(4) orgs and political activity.”
The White House denied any involvement in the IRS targeting scandal and responded to revelations of “lost” emails as a normal computer crash.
IRS Commissioner John Koskinen will testify today in front of the House Ways and Means Committee about the “lost” emails.
via IRS Official Whose Emails Were “Lost” Visited White House More Than 30 Times – Katie Pavlich.

Maybe Obama and his supporters think this will clear his atrocious record. Unfortunately it is all too convenient and in particular unbelievable. Once a liar, always a liar.

David Brat’s Success Due to 19,000 new primary voters

• Politics
• US

By: Joshua Cook Jun 15, 2014

According to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s pollster, Cantor’s defeat was due to thousands of Democrats in Virginia who voted in Tuesday’s primary.
But according to David Brat’s campaign that wasn’t the case.
“We were polling a universe of people who voted in one of the last three Republican primaries and said that they were likely to vote in this Republican primary,” said John McLaughlin, a New York-based pollster quoted in Campaigns & Elections magazine.
Winner David Brat’s campaign didn’t spend any time targeting Democrats.
Steve Adler, founder of Voter Activation Network (VAN) and  rVotes  said Brat’s campaign used rVotes to expand its universe beyond the traditional Virginia GOP primary voters being targeted by Cantor’s campaign. Adler also said several Tea Party campaigns had donated their data to Brat to allow him to expand his targeting universe.
“Now, suddenly he had access to hundreds if not thousands of different codes,” said Adler. “Funky stuff like anything from ‘voter owns only American cars’ to ‘known patriot group member’ to ‘voter flies a flag’ or ‘voter has an NRA sticker on their car.’ They were aggressively using the system to microtarget.”
Brat paid only $1,500, or 1 percent of his campaign budget, to use rVotes, the targeting software. Cantor, on the other hand, spent more than $5 million on TV ads, consultants, lawyers and fundraising.
McLaughlin pointed out that turn out two years ago was 46,000. Tuesday’s turnout was more than 65,000. “Untold story is who were the 19,000 new primary voters? They were probably not Republicans,” said McLaughlin.
A story in the Washington Post cited that high voter turnout was another thing that did not work in Cantor’s favor.
Brat’s successful strategy is definitely a model for Tea Party and Libertarian activists to use going forward.
David Brat’s Success Due to 19,000 new primary voters
Joshua Cook
Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:35:57 GMT

OUR FEARLESS LEADER

People are indeed connecting the dots but the picture that’s coming into their focus is that of Alfred E Newman

by BRIAN WILSON | LEWROCKWELL.COM | JUNE 6, 2014
From the Internet to the blog-o-sphere to E-zines to TV and radio chat shows, there is no shortage of opinions criticizing, ridiculing, psychoanalyzing our Fearless Leader. While taking different routes of reason, within acceptable boundaries one could conclude all of them accurate inasmuch as they share synonymous conclusions: Obama is a stumbling, bumbling fool, in over his head but with such a colossal ego or other psychologically dysfunctional handicaps is unable or unwilling to see the folly of his ways, much less accept the disastrous reality that he has created. To virtually all the pundits, the Embarrassed on the Left and Giddy on the right, the upcoming midterm elections will be the left cross to the right uppercut in 2016 that does away with every socialist program and its stench that has engulfed and threatened the very existence of America.
In a recent article, some learned friends of mine tracked the significant events of the Obama administration – from the so-called “stimulus “in 2009 to the most recent scandal cum embarrassment, the instantly infamous “Saving Private Bergdahl” (MAD Magazine) and the 5-for-1 “Wow! What-A-Deal!” deal. With each individual event, my friends concluded “Every act, every initiative, every landmark development is the same. They all have enormous production value. They all carry massive price tags. And they all fall flat, to say the very least. Everything is for show. Nothing of substance is accomplished. Yet everything comes at a steep, steep cost.” Who could successfully argue the point? For that matter, who could successfully argue against any of the boat load of opinion pieces that condemn the president for acting like a king -only in this case, the King of Hubris?
Well…I can.
What if they’re all wrong? What if we are the ones suffering with hubris? What if we are the fulfillment of Pogo’s observation: “We have met the enemy – and it is us.”?
In some recent correspondence, I raised this question: What if all that we are witnessing, discussing, condemning is, in fact, the sum total of the Obama 3 Ring Circus? In fact, to P. T. Barnum’s famous “there’s a sucker born every minute” line, why isn’t it possible – even probable – Obama & Company are playing us for the “Sucker” role?
Think about it….
While certainly fitting the diagnosis of blowhard, narcissist, incompetent, sociopath… Couldn’t the reality just as easily be: “No, Sucker, you got the part foolishly thinking we were just out of our league? The fact is this has been the game plan all along. You remember Alinsky, Cloward, Piven et al? Didn’t I tell you we were going to ‘fundamentally change America’? Didn’t I tell you my plan to shut down the coal biz and raise your utility bill? Don’t you remember ‘you can keep your doctor,health care plan. Period.’? Transparent? Hell, I’ve been telegraphing every one of my punches since my first stump speech .The ones that didn’t land? OK…little embarrassing…but, hey – I just shrugged it off, said SQUIRREL! and my friends in the press did the rest…along with your own ADD, of course”
So why isn’t that the plan? Not part of the “popular narrative”? Contradicts the All-American Rule  of Law Paradigm? For someone who routinely complains about a recalcitrant Congress and then rips off a few executive orders circumventing it, why would a reasonably objective analysis not lead to the conclusion this guy has a lot more unpleasant surprises up his sleeve? After all, who is going to stop him? Congress doesn’t have the necessary body parts or legal apparatus to effectively move against him. Even if they did, any substantive legal action would have to be taken by Attorney General Eric “Waco Whitewash” Holder. When you consider Klapper, Sebelius, Lerner, Clinton and the rest of the Obama outlaws flipping off Congressional subpoenas and Contempt charges, roaming the streets with impunity, would you face palm yourself bloody in surprise if the AG was just “too busy to get around to it”? Even if Boehner/ Pelosi/Reid/McConnell allowed the Congressional process to move accordingly?  Well? Anyone? Buehler?
Between the Bush’s Patriot Act to the NDAA and now Holder’s just announced  “war” on “domestic  terrorists” via The Domestic Terrorism Executive Committee, what Congressional committee, law, rule, regulation or any legal plumbing  would prevent Obama from declaring martial law at the drop of an ASP Baton? Black swan event? Acid indigestion?  By using the Administration’s patented “Ignore Button”, all the lousy ratings in all the public opinion polls have not adjusted his course one wit. So “public opinion” is a big nonstarter. Petitions? Facebook pages? Letters to Congressman/Senators/Editorial Boards? All as deadly and effective as a water balloon on an elephant hunt.
With everyone unilaterally tossing in the towel by chalking the demise of America to a former “community organizer” with a lousy personality, psychological dysfunction and superior incompetence, I think there is ample proof for a contrary and, yes, accurate conclusion. People are indeed connecting the dots but the picture that’s coming into their focus is that of Alfred E Newman.
I’m seeing Dorian Gray.
Our Fearless Leader
kurtnimmoadmin
Fri, 06 Jun 2014 18:41:57 GMT

California county votes to secede from the state

Posted on June 5, 2014 by RT.com

Residents of a northern California county on Tuesday voted in favor of a measure that will now force local officials to consider a plan to secede from the state and form a new entity named Jefferson.
That decision — one of three related matters being considered by voters across the Golden State on Tuesday this week — passed by 55.74 percent in Tehama County, with nearly 1,000 more ballots cast towards seceding from California compared to staying.
Elsewhere in the state, however, secessionist efforts in northern California largely failed this week when voters in two of three counties where the issue was up for debate voted against formally beginning the process to separate and start a new state.
Voters in Del Norte County voted Tuesday to reject a secessionist measure on ballots there that would have required local officials to begin examining the prospect of separating from California and forming a new state with the residents of other nearby counties. The measure was rejected by 59 percent.
In Tehama County, however, voters there cast their ballots in favor of an identical measure, passing the initiative by nearly 56 percent. Should the decision still stand afterthe final votes are tallied, then the Tehama County Board of Supervisors will have to adopt a Declaration of Support — purely an advisory measure — concerning the creation of a proposed State of Jefferson and separation from California.
“The vote is not binding, but serves merely to help the County gauge public support for the proposed separation from the State of California and formation of a new state,” according to the fine print on Tuesday’s questionnaire. “The Tehama County Board of Supervisors may take whatever action it desires, or no action, regardless of the vote.”
“My position is that I want to know the will of the people. And that is what I will follow, that is what I will do,” Supervisor Sandy Bruce said ahead of this week’s vote in Tehama.
Combined, the populations of Del Norte and Tehama counties account for only 91,000 — a statistic that allows residents scant representation with regards to picking elected officials to argue on their behalf in both the state capital and Washington. This has left many of the Californians favoring secession with feeling disenfranchised and has helped to fuel the fire of the secessionist movement in the northern part of the state.
Following weeks of anticipation, however, Tuesday’s elections across California yielded only a partial victory for the local secessionist movement. A third matter up for debate in Siskiyou County which would have renamed the area the Republic of Jefferson — a precursor to the possible “state” of Jefferson still in the works — garnered only 44 percent of the vote.
“I’m going to definitely talk to the people of Jefferson and tell them to stick around,” California Gov. Jerry Brown told reporters outside his residence in the capital city, Sacramento, Tuesday night, the Associated Press reported.
But Mark Baird, a proponent of the creation of Jefferson state, told the AP that secessionists aren’t easily giving up.
“There are people who are going to want this and there are people who won’t, but we aren’t ever going to quit until we get representation in rural Northern California,” the Siskiyou County resident said.
More counties in the region are expected to vote on related measures in the coming weeks. All told, the residents of 16 counties have established plans to help pave the way for the creation of Jefferson state, which would contain around 467,000 residents and be roughlythe size of New Hampshire and Vermont combined.
Lindsay France discusses the results with RT’s Meghan Lopez in Los Angeles.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCFoIiW9AoM] Courtesy of RT.com
California county votes to secede from the state
RT.com
Thu, 05 Jun 2014 16:00:20 GMT