The Obama Hustle

The Rediscovered Truth About Barack H Obama

Posts Tagged ‘White House

BREAKING NEWS – “Universe-shattering’ twist in Obama birth probe”

with 3 comments


By Bob Unruh WND

The lead investigator in Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse investigation of President Obama’s birth certificate says  the case has taken a startling turn, and sheriff’s investigators now are  assisting the Cold Case volunteers.

“When this information is finally exposed to the public, it will be  universe-shattering,” Mike Zullo told WND. “This is beyond the pale of anything  you can imagine.”

But the allegations, he said, which go far beyond a fraudulent birth  certificate, could be public as early as March.

The issue arose once again because of the death Wednesday in Hawaii of state Health  Department chief Loretta Fuddy in a plane crash. She was the official who waived state prohibitions and provided to the White House a copy of a document that Obama presented to the public as his birth certificate.

It’s the document that Arpaio’s investigators have concluded is  fraudulent.

Amid conspiracy theories circulating the Internet, Zullo told WND Friday that  Fuddy’s death – she was the only fatality among nine people aboard a small  airplane that crashed off the coast of Molokai – appears to be a tragic  accident, not foul play.

He said his investigation does not depend on any information from Fuddy.

In an interview today with author and talk-radio host Carl Gallups of  PPSimmons News and Ministry Network and the author of “The  Magic Man in the Sky,” and the new “The  Rabbi who Found Messiah,” Zullo said his investigation of the Obama  fraud case “does not hinge on Ms. Fuddy.”

“While her death certainly is a tragedy, it in no way hampers our  investigation in this matter,” he said. “If people truly believe that her  untimely demise was somehow related to an attempt to silence her for ‘what she  may or may not know,’ then there are several more people in Hawaii who should be  very, very concerned.

“Again, I want to emphasize,” Zullo said, “Sheriff Arpaio and I do not, at  this time, believe her death was connected to any nefarious circumstances.”

The birth certificate dispute dates back to before the 2008 election.  Critics, including Hillary Clinton, raised the issue about Obama’s status as a  “natural-born citizen.” Not defined in the Constitution, it probably was thought  at the time of the writing of the Constitution to be someone born of two citizen  parents.

Obama fails that test because his father was a Kenyan student visiting the  U.S.

Arpaio assigned his Cold Case Posse to look into the issue before the 2012  election, when constituents approached him and asked him to check whether Obama  would be an ineligible candidate on the presidential election ballot.

In a recent radio interview with Gallups, Zullo affirmed the investigation  had been expanded to the county sheriff’s office and was “moving in a direction  that was not anticipated by us.”

“The whole [issue] is more nefarious than you can imagine,” Zullo said,  crediting Arpaio for ordering the investigation and sticking with it.

“He knows in his gut that something is wrong,” Zullo said.

Dozens of lawsuits have been filed without success. One case is pending  before the Alabama Supreme Court for which Zullo provided evidence.

Read  all the arguments in the birth certificate controversy, in “Where’s the Birth  Certificate?” and check out the special reports, banners and bumper stickers on the  subject.

See a report of Fuddy’s death:

Still a live issue

Zullo has testified that the White House computer image of Obama’s birth  certificate contains anomalies that are unexplainable unless the document had  been fabricated piecemeal by human intervention, rather than being copied from a  genuine paper document.

“Mr. Obama has, in fact, not offered any verifiable authoritative document of  any legal significance or possessing any evidentiary value as to the origins of  his purported birth narrative or location of the birth event,” he explained.  “One of our most serious concerns is that the White House document appears to  have been fabricated piecemeal on a computer, constructed by drawing together  digitized data from several unknown sources.”

Zullo also has noted that the governor of Hawaii was unable to produce an  original birth document for Obama, and it should have been easy to find.

See some of Zullo’s evidence:

More recently, Grace  Vuoto of the World Tribune reported that among the experts challenging the  birth certificate is certified document analyst Reed Hayes, who has served as an  expert for Perkins Coie, the law firm that has been defending Obama in  eligibility cases.

“We have obtained an affidavit from a certified document analyzer, Reed  Hayes, that states the document is a 100 percent forgery, no doubt about it,”  Zullo told the World Tribune.

“Mr. Obama’s operatives cannot discredit [Hayes],” the investigator told the  news outlet. “Mr. Hayes has been used as the firm’s reliable expert. The very  firm the president is using to defend him on the birth certificate case has used  Mr. Hayes in their cases.”

The Tribune reported Hayes agreed to take a look at the documentation and  called almost immediately.

“There is something wrong with this,” Hayes said.

Hayes produced a 40-page report in which he says “based on my observations  and findings, it is clear that the Certificate of Live Birth I examined is not a  scan of an original paper birth certificate, but a digitally manufactured  document created by utilizing material from various sources.”

“In over 20 years of examining documentation of various types, I have never  seen a document that is so seriously questionable in so many respects. In my  opinion, the birth certificate is entirely fabricated,” he says in the  report.

Investigator  Douglas J. Hagmann of the Northeast Intelligence Network reported this month that in October an affidavit was filed in a court case, under seal, that  purportedly identifies the creator of the Obama birth certificate.

He said Douglas Vogt, an author and the owner and operator of a scanning  business who also has an accounting background, invested over two years in an  investigation of the authenticity of document.

Vogt, along with veteran typesetter Paul Ivey, conducted “exhaustive research  of the document provided to the White House Press Corps on April 27, 2011 – not  the online PDF, a critical distinction that must be understood,” Hagmann  said.

“Using their combined experience of 80 years in this realm, they conducted  extensive examinations of the ‘copy’ that was used as the basis for the PDF  document. They acquired the same type of equipment that was used back in the  late 1950s and early 1960s in an attempt to recreate the document presented as  an ‘authenticated copy’ proving the legitimacy of Barack Obama. Instead, they  found 20 points of forgery on that document and detail each point of forgery in  the affidavit,” wrote Hagmann.

“Even more interesting, Mr. Vogt claims to have identified the ‘signature’ of  the perpetrator, or the woman who created the forged document, hidden within the  document itself. Her identity, in addition to the identity of other conspirators  and their precise methods are contained in a sealed document supplementing the  public affidavit.”

Grounds for impeachment

Last  month, WND columnist Christopher Monckton wrote that the controversy he  calls “Hawaiigate” should be “the central ground of impeachment.”

“First, the dishonesty is shameless and in your face. Mr Obama’s advisers,  once they realized the ‘birth certificate’ was as bogus as a $3 bill, knew that  if they simply went on pretending that $3 bills are legal tender the  hard-left-dominated news media would carefully and continuously look the other  way, pausing occasionally to sneer at anyone who pointed out that, in this  constitutionally crucial respect, the ‘president’ has no clothes,” Monckton  wrote.

“Secondly, not one of the numerous agencies of state, as well as federal  government, whose duty was and is to investigate the Mickey-Mouse ‘birth certificate’  has bothered even to respond to the thousands of requests for investigation put  forward by U.S. citizens.

He said that in Hawaii last year, he watched “as a senior former state  senator called the police and, when they came, handed over to them compelling  evidence that the ‘birth certificate’ had been forged.”

“The police, correctly, passed the file to the state’s attorney general, a  ‘Democrat,’ who did nothing about it,” he said.

“In Washington, D.C., I watched as a concerned citizen from Texas telephoned  the FBI and reported the ‘birth certificate’ as being a forgery. They said they  would send two agents to see him within the hour. No one came.”

‘You tell me about eligibility’

One of the highest profile skeptics has  been billionaire Donald Trump.

Trump said he can’t be certain that Obama is eligible to be president, and he  pointedly noted that a reporter who was poking fun at the issue admitted he  can’t, either.

Trump repeatedly has insisted Obama has not documented his eligibility. At one point, he  offered $5 million to the charity or charities of Obama’s choice if he would  release his passport records and authorize the colleges he attended to release  his applications and other records.

Trump argues that those documents would show whether or not Obama ever  accepted scholarship or other aid as a foreign student, which could preclude him  from being a “natural-born citizen.”

Trump’s conversation with ABC’s Jonathan Karl started with Karl noting that  Trump took on the “not serious” issue of eligibility.

“Why does that make me not serious?” Trump demanded. “I think that resonated  with a lot of people.”

Karl replied: “You don’t still question he was born in the United States, do  you?”

“I have no idea,” Trump said. “I don’t know. Was there a birth certificate?  You tell me. You know some people say that was not his birth certificate. I’m  saying I don’t know. Nobody knows, and you don’t know either. Jonathan you’re a  smart guy, and you don’t know.”

When Karl admitted he was “pretty sure,” Trump jumped on the statement.

“You just said you’re pretty sure … you have to be 100 percent sure,” he  said. “Jonathan, you said you’re pretty convinced, so let’s just see what  happens over time.”

Read  all the arguments in the birth certificate controversy, in “Where’s the Birth  Certificate?” and check out the special reports, banners and bumper stickers on the  subject.

Among the many records the Obama camp has refused to release are the marriage  license of his father (Barack Sr.) and mother (Stanley Ann Dunham), name change  records (Barry Soetero to Barack Hussein Obama), adoption records, records of  his and his mother’s repatriation as U.S. citizens from Indonesia, baptism  records, Noelani Elementary School (Hawaii) records, Punahou School financial  aid or school records, Occidental College financial aid records, Harvard Law  School records, Columbia senior thesis, Columbia College records, record with  Illinois State Bar Association, files from his terms as an Illinois state  senator, his law client list, medical records and passport records.

Monckton, citing Zullo’s sworn  affidavit in a court case, published a sworn  mathematical analysis demonstrating the near-zero probability that the White  House “birth certificate” is genuine.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/universe-shattering-twist-in-obama-birth-probe/#Xq5PAbA0rz0Myrdw.99

Advertisements

BREAKING NEWS – The dam bursts on Benghazi

with 6 comments


By Paul Brandus | The Week

Thanks to a bombshell report from ABC News, GOP accusations that the White House politicized a tragedy no longer seem so unsubstantiated

For a long time, the Republican hunt for the truth surrounding the Benghazi terror attack has reminded me of one of President Reagan‘s favorite jokes. It concerns a little boy whose parents worried he was too optimistic. So they took him to a psychiatrist. Trying to dampen his spirits, the doctor led the boy into a room piled high with horse manure. The boy unexpectedly squealed with delight and began digging through it. “What on earth are you doing?” the psychiatrist asked.
“With all this manure,” the boy replied, “there must be a pony in here somewhere.”
And so it is with Benghazi. Republicans, convinced that the American people are being hoodwinked by the Obama administration, have been digging through the doo-doo for eight months. There must be a conspiracy and cover-up in here somewhere, they think. There must be.
The White House has scoffed at this witch hunt for months. But this week, it’s looking like they’re the ones standing in the doo-doo — playing politics, it seems, with tragedy.
The administration has long maintained that the now-infamous talking points used by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on five Sunday talk shows just days after the September 11 attack were the product of the intelligence community. We know the talking points originated in the intelligence community. But the final product itself? No.

ABC News reports that the documents were heavily edited by the State Department. And not just edited, but censored: State requested that references to Ansar al-Sharia — tied to al Qaeda — be deleted. It also requested that references to CIA warnings about terror threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack be deleted as well. (Read the whole ABC story here.)

Rewind to November 28. Here’s what White House press secretary Jay Carney told us at that day’s press briefing:

Those talking points originated from the intelligence community (IC). They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened. The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment (emphasis added) that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.

And Carney just two days ago stuck to this story, telling us: 

The only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and nonsubstantive. They corrected the description of the building or the facility in Benghazi from consulate to diplomatic facility and the like. And ultimately, this all has been discussed and reviewed and provided in enormous levels of detail by the administration to congressional investigators, and the attempt to politicize the talking points, again, is part of an effort to, you know, chase after what isn’t the substance here.

Carney’s phrase “here at the White House” may be accurate in the physical sense, but in the broader context there’s no question he was referring to the Obama administration at large. And as Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard — which first published some of the email traffic between the White House and State Department on this — charged, “senior Obama administration officials knowingly misled the country about what happened.”

So who at the State Department was involved in changing — and censoring — the talking points? According to one email, spokesperson Victoria Nuland — who reported to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — expressed specific concern about this particular CIA talking point:

The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks. [Via ABC News]

Is there a White House connection? ABC notes that in a Sept. 14 email — two days before Rice went on TV — Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes said the State Department’s concerns needed to be addressed.
“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department,” Rhodes noted.
The final talking points eventually given to Rice reflected State’s concerns, but Carney told us that it’s all on the up-and-up because the changes were signed off on by the CIA.

There’s a meatpacking-like quality to all this. You don’t really want to know how your hamburger is processed, do you? The administration’s defense — and it’s looking thinner than ice on a late spring pond — is that government bureaucracy is messy and multi-layered and that’s a big part of why Rice said what she did.
Benghazi occurred seven weeks before election day. The administration’s strategy was simple: Downplay the terror attack, change the narrative, and run out the clock. And that’s what it did.

But now the dam has burst. Carney’s “here at the White House” comment has essentially thrown Clinton under the bus. Republicans, who leaked the edited emails to Karl and Hayes, have succeeded on two fronts: They’ve got the administration on the defensive over Benghazi, and they’ve weakened the Democrat’s most formidable 2016 candidate.

It seems that after all that digging, Republicans have found their pony at last.

Holder: Yep, Obama could kill Americans on U.S. soil

with 3 comments


The Obama Hustle: Holder and Obama need to go away quickly

By Olivier Knox, Yahoo! News

President Barack Obama has the legal authority to unleash deadly force—such as drone strikes—against Americans on U.S. soil without first putting them on trial, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote in a letter released Tuesday

Holder, writing to Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, underlined that Obama “has no intention” of targeting his fellow citizens with unmanned aerial vehicles and would do so only if facing “an extraordinary circumstance.”

Paul had asked the Obama administration on Feb. 20 whether the president “has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil and without trial.” On Tuesday, he denounced Holder’s response as “frightening” and “an affront to the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans.”

“The U.S. government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so,” Holder assured Paul in the March 4, 2013 letter. The attorney general also underlined that “we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat.”

Holder added: “The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront.”

But “it is possible, I suppose to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,” Holder said. “For example, the President could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances of a catastrophic attack” like Pearl Harbor or 9/11.

“Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of this authority,” said Holder.  Paul, whose office released the letter, denounced the attorney general’s comments.

“The U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening—it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans,” the senator said in a statement.

The exchange came as the White House agreed to give Senate Intelligence Committee members access to all of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel opinions justifying Obama’s expanded campaign of targeted assassination of suspected terrorists overseas, including American citizens. Some lawmakers had warned they would try to block top Obama counterterrorism adviser John Brennan’s nomination to head the CIA unless they were able to see the memos.

A few hours after the White House agreed to share the information, the committee approved Brennan 12-3, setting the stage for a full Senate vote.

Obama’s drone war—relatively popular at home, reviled across the Muslim world—has drawn fresh scrutiny ever since NBC News obtained and published a Justice Department memo that lays out the legal justification behind it. The White House has defended the policy as “necessary,” “ethical” and “wise.” But civil liberties champions have sharply criticized it.

Administration faces question: Are donors paying for Obama access?

leave a comment »


By Rachel Rose Hartman, Yahoo News

Logo of the United States White House, especia...

White House spokesman Jay Carney on Monday answered growing questions about whether big donors to President Barack Obama’s nonprofit Organizing for America (OFA) are being promised access to the president.

His answer? Well, kind of.

While Carney had responded “no” when Fox News’ Ed Henry asked if a recent report “suggests that access to the president is being sold,” his explanation sidestepped the issue. He offered instead a string of policy proposals, definitions and a recitation of campaign finance rules.

On Friday, New York Times reporter Nicholas Confessore wrote of an alleged pay-for-access arrangement through OFA: “Giving or raising $500,000 or more puts donors on a national advisory board for Mr. Obama’s group and the privilege of attending quarterly meetings with the president, along with other meetings at the White House.”

On Monday, Carney emphasized that the group, which was born out of the president’s campaign committee, is an “independent organization”; that administration officials follow rules regarding separation between outside groups and the administration; and that the president supports campaign finance transparency.

When pressed again to explain the reports, Carney referred questions to OFA.

 

BREAKING NEWS – Hawaii state registrar Alvin Onaka has publicly certified to AZ SOS Ken Bennett that Barack Obama’s HI birth certificate is legally non-valid and the White House image is a forgery.

with 187 comments


English: This is the long form birth certifica...

Forged Obama COLB

As reported to AL HENDERSHOT, Editor of The Obama Hustle.

Hawaii state registrar Alvin Onaka has publicly certified to AZ SOS Ken Bennett that Barack Obama’s HI birth certificate is legally non-valid and the White House image is a forgery. He also confirmed to KS SOS Kris Kobach that the information contained in the White House image isNOT “identical to” that in the official record.

Many of you have replied to concerned constituents that the matter is settled by the public statements of Hawaii officials, the HDOH birth index list, the newspaper birth announcements, and Obama’s posted short-form and long-form birth certificates.  Onaka’s disclosure – the only one made by a HI official under oath –negates all that and fits the vast legal and forensic evidence collected so far, some of which is in my affidavit (privately posted at for NE criminal case #B2-119. Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his Cold Case Commander, Mike Zullo  (both of whom initially disbelieved the skeptics) have both signed affidavits saying there is legal-quality FORENSIC evidence that Obama’s long-form birth certificate and draft registration are forged. Onaka has now revealed the REASON for the forgery: to hide the non-validity of the birth record. Evidence in my affidavit proves (among other things) that the 1960-64 birth index includes non-valid records.

Onaka’s disclosure is proof of results-altering election fraud in every state in this country, since fraudulent filing documents were used to place Obama on every state’s ballot. Absent a non-Hawaii birth record, Obama doesn’t even have a legally-determined birth date, place, or parents so nobody can lawfully say he meets the age or citizenship requirements to be President – and yet every Certification of Nomination falsely swears that he is eligible.  EVERY electoral vote for Obama is thus now LEGALLY KNOWN to be fraudulently-obtained and must not be certified as lawful on Jan 8th. As with the Sandusky case, those with knowledge have legal responsibility to act, and that is now you.

Even if the majority in Congress wrongly certifies the electoral vote, that only makes Obama the President-elect. The 20th Amendment says that if the President-elect fails to qualify by Jan 20th, the Vice-President-elect must “act as President”. Without any legally-determined birth date, birth place, or birth parents, there is no way that Barack Obama could have qualified by Jan 20, 2009 – or can qualify by Jan 20, 2013, unless his birth facts ARE legally determined. The biggest favor any one of you can do for this whole process (and for Obama himself if he is to become President LAWFULLY) is to file a lawsuit (with standing) challenging Obama’s eligibility so that the records will be presented as evidence to a JUDICIAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE person or body (not legislative, according to Hawaii statute 338-17, so Congress is powerless on this issue) and birth facts determined. That’s the only way Obama can “qualify” by Jan 20, 2013.

Our President has committed perjury 6 times by swearing (in AZ, NC, and WV) that he is eligible, knowing that he has no valid HI birth certificate (and claiming a Kenyan birth in his bio until 2007), and let his spokesmen pass off two forgeries as genuine on his behalf. He knowingly allowed a decorated military surgeon to lose his life’s savings and retirement and spend 6 months in prison for simply wanting to know if his combat orders were lawful, or whether they Constitutionally had to come from Joe Biden instead – who OPPOSED the “surge”.

It appears that many felonies have been committed. An impeachment must precede a criminal investigation and trial, so failure to impeach is obstruction of equal protection & the rule of law – without which, none of your life’s work even matters because the laws you make will only be enforced when politically expedient to the powerful. A banana republic.

The GOP’s Electoral College Scheme

leave a comment »


English: Electoral college map for the 2012, 2...

English: Electoral college map for the 2012, 2016 and 2020 United States presidential elections, using apportionment data released by the US Census Bureau. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By Reid Wilson | National Journal

 

Republicans alarmed at the apparent challenges they face in winning the White House are preparing an all-out assault on the Electoral College system in critical states, an initiative that would significantly ease the party’s path to the Oval Office.

Senior Republicans say they will try to leverage their party’s majorities in Democratic-leaning states in an effort to end the winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes. Instead, bills that will be introduced in several Democratic states would award electoral votes on a proportional basis.

Already, two states — Maine and Nebraska — award an electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district. The candidate who wins the most votes statewide takes the final two at-large electoral votes. Only once, when President Obama won a congressional district based in Omaha in 2008, has either of those states actually split their vote.

But if more reliably blue states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin were to award their electoral votes proportionally, Republicans would be able to eat into what has become a deep Democratic advantage.

All three states have given the Democratic nominee their electoral votes in each of the last six presidential elections. Now, senior Republicans in Washington are overseeing legislation in all three states to end the winner-take-all system.

Obama won all three states in 2008, handing him 46 electoral votes because of the winner-take-all system. Had electoral votes been awarded by district, Republican nominee Mitt Romney would have cut into that lead. Final election results show that Romney won nine of Michigan’s 14 districts, five of eight in Wisconsin, and at least 12 of 18 in Pennsylvania. Allocate the two statewide votes in each state to Obama and that means Romney would have emerged from those three Democratic states with 26 electoral votes, compared with just 19 for Obama (and one district where votes are still being counted).

Republicans are able to contemplate such a bold plan because of their electoral success in 2010, when the party won control of state legislative chambers and the governorships in all three states, giving them total control over the levers of state government.

“If you did the calculation, you’d see a massive shift of electoral votes in states that are blue and fully [in] red control,” said one senior Republican taking an active role in pushing the proposal. “There’s no kind of autopsy and outreach that can grab us those electoral votes that quickly.”

The proposals, the senior GOP official said, are likely to come up in each state’s legislative session in 2013. Bills have been drafted, and legislators are talking to party bosses to craft strategy. Saul Anuzis, the former chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, has briefed Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus and Chief of Staff Jeff Larson on his state’s proposal. The proposal “is not being met with the ‘We can’t do that’ answer. It’s being met with ‘I’ve already got a bill started,’ ” the official said.

Republican state legislators are motivated to act after Romney’s loss. And the party lost legislative seats in all three states, adding urgency to pass the measures before voters head to the polls in 2014.

Tweaks of electoral-vote rules are hardly unprecedented, according to Michael McDonald, a political scientist at George Mason University. State legislatures routinely changed Electoral College allocation rules in the early years of the Republic; the political fallout then can inform present-day lawmakers considering the changes.

“State legislative elections became tantamount to the presidential election in a state. Local issues were put aside for presidential politics,” McDonald said. “These states legislators thus risk the nationalization of their state politics, to the detriment of their personal careers. State legislators learned that once they fixed the Electoral College rules, national politics no longer dominated state elections.”

In the long run, Republican operatives say they would like to pursue similar Electoral College reform in Florida, Ohio, and Virginia. Obama won all three states, but Romney won a majority of the congressional districts in each state.

Any changes to the allocation of Electoral College votes would have a major impact on each party’s path to the White House. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia have given Democrats their collective 246 electoral votes in each of the last six elections. That virtually forces Republicans to run the swing-state table.

But rewriting the rules would dramatically shrink or eliminate the Democratic advantage, because of the way House districts are drawn. The decennial redistricting process has dumped huge percentages of Democratic voters into some urban districts, while Republican voters are spread over a wider number of districts, giving the party an advantage. This year, Democratic House candidates won more than 1 million more votes than Republican candidates, but Republicans won 33 more seats.

And if Republicans go ahead with their plan, Democrats don’t have the option of pushing back. After the 2010 wave, Democrats control all levers of government in only one state — West Virginia — that Romney won this year. Some consistently blue presidential states have Republican legislatures; the reverse is not true.

Some Republicans acknowledge that the party would open itself up to charges of political opportunism, but that they would frame the proposal as a chance to make the system more fair.

“With the frustration of the current system—and the fact that almost everyone would agree proportional or CD is more representative and maybe more fair than the current winner-take-all—Republicans have a strong, righteous argument,” Anuzis said. “However, the motivation would be viewed as being purely political since it hasn’t been done before.”

 

Secession petitions filed in 20 states After 2012 Election

with 6 comments


Official photographic portrait of US President...

By Mike Krumboltz, Yahoo! News

 

In the wake of last week’s presidential election, thousands of Americans have signed petitions seeking permission for their states to peacefully secede from the United States. The petitions were filed on We the People, a government website.

States with citizens filing include Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. Oddly, folks from Georgia have filed twice. Even stranger, several of the petitions come from states that went for President Barack Obama.

The petitions are short and to the point. For example, a petition from the Volunteer State reads: “Peacefully grant the State of Tennessee to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government.” Of all the petitions, Texas has the most signatures so far, with more than 23,000.

Of course, this is mostly a symbolic gesture. The odds of the American government granting any state permission to go its own way are on par with winning the lottery while getting hit by a meteor while seeing Bigfoot while finding gluten-free pizza that tastes like the real thing.

An article from WKRC quotes a University of Louisville political science professor who explained that these petitions aren’t uncommon. Similar petitions were filed following the 2004 and 2008 elections. Still, should the petitions garner 25,000 signatures in a month, they will require an official response from the Obama administration.

From the We the People site:

The right to petition your government is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. We the People provides a new way to petition the Obama Administration to take action on a range of important issues facing our country. We created We the People because we want to hear from you. If a petition gets enough support, White House staff will review it, ensure it’s sent to the appropriate policy experts, and issue an official response.

Not everybody who wants to secede is polite enough to write a petition. Peter Morrison, treasurer of the Hardin County (Texas) Republican Party, wrote a post-election newsletter in which he urges the Lone Star State to leave the Union.

“We must contest every single inch of ground and delay the baby-murdering, tax-raising socialists at every opportunity. But in due time, the maggots will have eaten every morsel of flesh off of the rotting corpse of the Republic, and therein lies our opportunity… Why should Vermont and Texas live under the same government? Let each go her own way in peace, sign a free trade agreement among the states and we can avoid this gut-wrenching spectacle every four years.”

Cry and Howl

Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off. I Kings 20:11

YouViewed/Editorial

News , Blues and Guns ... Not Necessarily In That Order

For What It's Worth

Greenwich, Connecticut real estate, politics, etc.

Today's News 4 You

Just another WordPress.com site

Mississippi Coal

Kemper Lignite Coal Plant Connections to the United Nations' Projects

The Piratearian

Aye, It's good to be a Pirate!

Texas Tudors' Blog

Tudor and Frederick Ancestors

HwnSurf.info

The Surf Report

The Ohio Conservative

Conservative thought and opinion from the Midwest

theconservativehillbilly

Confronting stupid people with the cold hard conservative fist of truth

Hump Day Report

It's America...We Can Get Over The Hump!

My Very Own Point of View

bits and pieces of what runs through my mind

The Daley Gator

If You're Left, You Just Ain't Right

Socialism is not the Answer

Limited Government Is

2012: What's the 'real' truth?

To find out, I hold a finger in the breeze.

Sparkleplenty27's Campaign Coverage

Political News About the Campaign FACT BASED and Commentary

Old1wordpress's Blog

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Real News World Wide

News World Wide, Real News Worldwide, News World Wide, Verified News, Infowars.com, realnewsworldwide.com, world news, headline news, best news

%d bloggers like this: