Raise Your Hand if You Have Multiple Felonies

Ferguson: From Around the Web

Thought I'd post some stuff from around the web. Some of it illustrates the absurdity by being absurd. Some shows us what thugs and misguided idiots with which we're dealing. Some are newspaper comments reacting to articles. Its nice to know that despite the media leading us to believe that most of America is out protesting perceived injustice, there are still Americans who get it. May this blog post provide some balance against the racist narrative being pushed by the race-baiters, thugs, and liberals.

The thing that disgusts me is that many in  the black community think we're still in 1950s Selma. It starts at the top with Obama's comments to stir up hate and divisiveness. Every time he interjects himself into issues to make them racial (the Harvard professor arrested for breaking into his own home that resulted in the beer summit at the WH, Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown, Eric Garner), he only divides the country and promotes violence.  Helter Skelter is coming if he doesn't  stop.




--The fact is, the Justice system worked perfectly in the Ferguson case. No charges were made until all the evidence was looked at, and all the witnesses vetted. Unfortunately, this didn't fit the black good/white bad narrative of many liberal bigots.

--No justice, no receipts!

--The retardation level in Ferguson is off the charts. Put your hands down, pull your pants up, quit breaking the law and get a fucking job you GD morons.

REACTION TO A LOCAL NAACP LEADER'S COMPARISON OF POLICE TO THE KKK GIVES US THESE GEMS:

 

--These racists exposed exactly what the problem is with blacks in America, them, and their mind set. Lets blame the police, lets call for more training of police, and lets blame more black deaths on white police than their black counterparts or other whites. Really?

The problem is how blacks are raised and their entire culture of racism. Here is the solution, teach your kids and neighbors not to be racists at every turn. Teach them not to commit crimes. Teach them to be respectful of others. Teach them to be respectful of others property. Teach them how to respect authority figures, and not be insolent to them and attack them. Teach them to use the education system to actually learn something called a skill, and further themselves by getting a good job and being productive instead of being a burden on society because all they were taught was how to work the system. Teach them how to actually obey laws. Start simple like stopping at red lights and not parking in Mothers With Infants or Handicap spots, and work your way up to stopping the stealing and being a thug and then up to stop being a felon and robbing and killing. Then the most important thing to teach them is how not to be a black racist. Those are the worse kinds because they live by the code and excel at it and it only brings them down blaming someone else for their plight when it is they themselves and their actions that are bringing themselves down. Lastly, rid your ranks of racists like Al Sharpton, and these so called black activist who only continue to stir the race pot to stay relevant and keep racism alive. They will never admit the real facts of their agenda, and they will never admit to their lies. The truth is, more blacks are killed by other blacks than all the other groups combined and tripled. Yet these gullible dolts believe their lies so they can continue to hate and do nothing while living off the system so they can stick it to whitey. Hows that working for you? We see your still full of hate, still poor, still having to cheat and lie and steal your way through life so you can show off to the other black about your $50/K car while you sit in an empty house and cry poor and oppressed. Spare me.

 

--His comments set us back 50 years

 

--This from a guy who was a paid informant for the Wilmington Police. I guess when you get into the position that Richard "Mousey" Smith has you have to distance yourself from the very police officers and department that you label KKK, but took money from in return for information.

 

--Another useless loud mouth d*** with a microphone. No matter that the KKK was started by southern democrats following the civil war in which hundreds of thousands died ending slavery. Prick.

 

--Just when you think these poor "victims" have nothing left to demand they surprise you. The Congressional Black Caucus wants Obama to invite Michael Brown's parents to his State of the Union Address as props. I have a better idea. He should have the business owners who lost their businesses from arson and loorting there. As an added attraction he could include the car NJ Senator Corey Booker claimed he drove to Hawaii when he got his drivers license at the age of 17.

 

--The NAACP has to play the race card. Otherwise there would be no reason for it to exist.

 

 

Justice For Darren Wilson & A Great Day for American Justice System

The Brown family attorney is an idiot.  How did this country get turned upside down that people actually think this way? Here is his quote on the Grand Jury process, a long-standing part of the American justice system:

Benjamin Crump, an attorney for Brown's family, said they are frustrated the prosecutor didn't charge Wilson himself or suggest a charge to grand jurors.

As it is, "you don't have any direction, you're just putting all the evidence out there and you're going to let them figure it out and they can make up their own minds," Crump said. "You know, it just boggles the mind why he thinks this is fair."

Source:  http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FERGUSON?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-11-22-21-38-58

What could be more fair than letting people make up their own minds? Moron.

But most importantly, kudos to the Grand Jury for considering the evidence and not caving to pressure from savages and racists in the black community.

My Message to Ferguson

One State's Election Results

The recent mid-term election was a disaster for liberals nation-wide.  Liberal Democrats were defeated by those candidates who ran on a conservative agenda (repealing Obama Care, securing the borders, fiscal discipline, etc.).  It was a conservative victory of historical proportions.  Now to see if the winning candidates keep their word or just become more slimy politicians no better than any other. On the national level, let's take a look at the prognostications that were oh so wrong:
  Of interest in the national mood swing that just occurred is one area where nothing changed.

Let's take a look at a politically insignificant state's election results.  Delaware, though being just a pimple on the face of national politics, is the bluest of blue states. It's a state so far left that I'm pretty sure its illegal for your car to have a right-turn signal.

In the most recent, mid-term election, 36% of eligible voters participated. This is almost in line with the national average.

One U.S. Senator and Delaware's only U.S. Representative were up for re-election (Coons and Carney), and both won handily (55.8% and 59.8% of the votes, respectively).  Let's compare this to the 2012 election, which also had one U.S. Senator and the sole U.S. Representative races on the ballot.  The Democrats' victory in 2012 was 66.4% and 64.4% percent of the vote, respectively.  This represents a decrease in the Democrat's margin of victory of 10.6% and 4.6% respectively.

Such minimal inroads by the Republicans in a greater context of a Republican wave across the country, which clearly signaled that most people are anti-Obama and the libs, just shows how blue Delaware remains.  If this mid-term election cycle marked by a Republican wave can not move the needle in Delaware, it is evident that Delaware will remain blue in perpetuity.  It also shows how liberal the Republicans are (at least in one state) and how they do not provide a conservative contrast to the liberalism that reigns.  Were they to get away from the Republican establishment bullshit and have more Tea Party influence, there might be enough of a distinction to actually give the citizens a choice.  This wouldn't work, you say?  Well, how is the current situation working out for conservatives? A true conservative option could not do any worse.

If citizens were given a true conservative/liberal choice, instead of the current liberalism of both parties, they might attract more people like this guy:


So there you have it.  A politically insignificant state where a change in the national mood to the right has little, if any, effect on its political color.  It will forever be deep blue.

Dangerous Times

America faces most dangerous two years in 150 years

By Charles Hurt - - Wednesday, November 5, 2014

ANALYSIS/OPINION:
If President Obama suffered a "shellacking" in the 2010 elections, then what he endured Tuesday night was nothing short of a vicious gangland beatdown the likes of which have rarely been seen before in the history of electoral politics.

This, of course, is a wonderful and well-deserved outcome. But beware: America now enters the two most dangerous years of her existence — or certainly the most dangerous since the Great Depression and possibly going all the way back to the Civil War.

Not to dismiss the promising results of Tuesday's election.

Voters clearly and forcefully rejected the party, politics and policies of President Obama. They slapped his socialist agenda back into the days of Soviet gulags, where it belongs.

His grand visions of mighty government ruling unchecked over desperate ghettos have been snuffed out.

Gone, too, were the so-called "low-information voters" who have been coaxed to the polls since 2008 on lies and false promises that the federal government would solve all their problems.

They are used up and wrung out.

Even the onslaught of threats and desperate accusations in endless emails to their Obamaphones couldn't motivate those people to the polls one more time.

Voters rejected the craven, crass and mafioso tactics of Senate Leader Harry Reid.

Voters stripped him of his baldly partisan use of the United States Senate as a graveyard for all House legislation in order to protect his Democrats from tough votes and insulate the President from reality.
The little man with giant fists got staggered by a nasty uppercut from voters even though Reid saw it coming for weeks. Now, the ex-boxer stumbles on the canvas all tangled in the ropes, waiting for the bell.

And voters also rejected the loony-toon delusions of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. Honestly, the woman should be running a hat and wig shop in Haight-Ashbury, selling weed and prescription pills on the side. How it is that Democrats in Congress have taken her so seriously for so long will baffle historians for decades.

The silver lining for Democrats today is now they now have the perfect excuse to bounce both of them out of leadership forever.

And this is where things get very, very dangerous for America. President
Obama still has two more years left in his final term.

Already, he has demonstrated again and again that he has no regard for the constitution or the legitimacy of laws when they do not suit his agenda. He flaunts his disregard for the constitutional process, dismisses laws he doesn't like and rewrites others.

He mocks the powers of Congress. The Supreme Court has slapped him down more than any president in recent times. All of this as he tells us he is an expert on constitutional law.
Now come his very explicit threats to pass more illegal and unconstitutional presidential edicts to grant amnesty to illegal aliens already in the United States. This, in turn, will issue invitations for millions more illegals to come streaming across the border.

It will not end at immigration. Unchecked power is addictive.

Disowned by Democrats and made to feel irrelevant in this election, President Obama's enormous and unjustified ego is deeply wounded. He is frustrated and feels caged, cornered. This is when people like him are most dangerous.

Buoyant Republicans will make an effort to engage him.

But President Obama is not a listener. He is not a negotiator. He is not a learner. He will just take what he wants. It is easier that way.

Franklin D. Roosevelt's court-packing scheme during the Great Depression was nothing like the strains this president has put on Constitution. Indeed, not since the Civil War has America faced such a dire threat to her existence as a lawful, constitutional republic.

The difference in leadership between then and now could not be more striking.

To bind the union, Abraham Lincoln took an economic and political war and elevated it into something higher. He made it about emancipating slaves and won. And saved the Republic.
This president does the opposite. He got elected promising to elevate politics but instead finds unity and sows discord, often inciting racial divisions.

America's only hope today is that President Obama finally turns to the bust of Lincoln he keeps in the Oval Office and listens.

Executive Amnesty Warning

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/03/Law-Enforcement-Defines-Election-As-Referendum-Obama-s-Amnesty-Means-Tidal-Wave-Of-Illegal-Immigration

As Americans prepare to vote in Tuesday’s midterm elections, top sheriffs from across the country are warning: If President Barack Obama succeeds with his plans for an executive amnesty, there will be a flood of new illegal immigration into America this country the likes of which this country has never seen before.

“The law applies to you and I as citizens, and yet it appears there is no law when it comes to illegals,” Pinal County Arizona Sheriff Paul Babeu said in a statement provided to Breitbart News. “The message the President’s action will send is this: if you can get to the border, you’re home free. It completely undermines the rule of law and makes the job of every law enforcement officers – which is already difficult – impossible. We already have our hands full because the border is not secure: imagine what the situation will look like when the President gives executive amnesty to those already here. It would unleash a tidal wave of illegal border crossings, overwhelming law enforcement. It will be open season for the cartels. Again: the border is not secure now – to give a presidential amnesty would be to make matters dramatically worse for our officers who are trying to do the job the President won’t.”

Maryland’s Frederick County sheriff Chuck Jenkins said that Obama’s planned executive amnesty, if it succeeds, will turn every county in America into a border county.

“In my opinion, based on what I’ve seen, every county in America will become a border county,” Jenkins said. “What were going to see from the President's action is not only the cost to healthcare, social programs, and education, but the increase in criminals coming into our country. You’re going to see increases in crime, infiltration from transnational gangs, the drug trade and human trafficking.”

Tuesday’s election, Senate Budget Committee ranking member Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)wrote in an op-ed for Fox News, is a referendum on Obama’s plans for an executive amnesty.

“Every single Senate Democrat voted for the Obama-backed plan to provide immediate work permits to 12 million illegal immigrants – allowing them to compete for any job in America,” Sessions wrote, adding later in his column a direct plea to American citizens.

Sessions, speaking to American voters, wrote that “with your vote, you have the power to prove them [Washington and corporate elitists pushing for amnesty] wrong.”

“You have the power to deliver a message they won’t forget,” Sessions wrote.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has made the same argument in recent months, after legislation he introduced that would defund and block Obama’s amnesty plans passed the House.

“President Obama has decided this election will be a referendum on amnesty,” Cruz said in early September on the Senate floor as he headed for an immigration showdown with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Reid, using his majority of Democrats in the Senate, blocked efforts by Cruz, Sessions, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and others to pass the bills defunding Obama’s amnesty.

Several GOP Senate candidates, like New Hampshire’s Scott Brown, Arkansas’ Tom Cotton and Georgia’s David Perdue—among others—have made stopping Obama’s amnesty a central theme of their campaign. Sessions has worked to help all three win their races, writing articles for and providing critical messaging for them in the home stretch. Cotton appears likely to win by a large margin on Tuesday, and Brown has come from behind in a big way in a race that comes down entirely to turnout. Perdue may win outright on Tuesday, but a libertarian in the race may send that contest against liberal Democrat Michelle Nunn into a January runoff.

Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman Reince Priebus, in a recent interview with Breitbart News and tele-town hall with TheTeaParty.net, promised Americans that if they deliver the Senate Majority to the GOP then Republicans will stop Obama’s planned executive amnesty.

“While I can’t speak for the legislature, I’m very confident we will stop that,” Priebus said, while adding he believes the president’s plans are “un-American.” 

“We will do everything we can to make sure it doesn’t happen: Defunding, going to court, injunction,” Priebus said. “You name it. It’s wrong. It's illegal. And for so many reasons, and just the basic fabric of this country, we can’t allow it to happen and we won’t let it happen. I don’t know how to be any stronger than that. I’m telling you, everything we can do to stop it we will.”

Sheriff Sam Page of North Carolina’s Rockingham County said America should prepare for a “surge” of illegal immigration—and the criminal activity that comes with it—if Republicans don’t succeed in stopping Obama, as Priebus promised. 

“Human trafficking, drug trafficking and criminal activity are coming through our borders, but not staying near our borders – it’s getting into every part of the United States,” Page said in a statement provided to Breitbart News. “This is a public safety issue – a terrorist or any other kind of criminal may cross our borders.  We just don’t know who is coming across. If the President issue his executive amnesty, you’ll see a dramatic surge of people coming in from all countries, including Central America – and again we won’t know who’s coming in: gangs, drugs, cartels, public health threats, human trafficking.  We’re not catching but a small percentage of those coming across. This will place public safety in our communities in danger, and taxpaying citizens will be left picking up the tab.”

Hidalgo County, Texas, sheriff Eddie Guerra said America should prepare for a “terrible situation” if Obama succeeds in his plans.

“We are going to see what I’m seeing here on the border in larger and large numbers, which is a huge increase in illegal immigration coming across our border,” Guerra said. “An amnesty order is going to create more people an incentive to come into the US. The drug cartel will exploit any opportunity to come into the United States, and this will create the cover for them to continue exploiting our porous border. This will create the opportunity for kidnapping, trafficking, sexual abuse, prostitution, and smuggling. These smugglers have no regard for human life. They destroy private property. They have no respect for law enforcement. They circumvent US checkpoints.”

Sheriff Tom Hodgson of Bristol County, Massachusetts, said even states as far away from the border as his Bay State are not safe.

“It will dramatically increase the draw for illegal immigrants to come into our country, because you have the President of the United States sending out a message that we have no problem with people ignoring our immigration laws,” Hodgson said. “They’re looking for a wink and nod that says ‘yeah, come on in’ – we’ve seen it with the DACA. It is the worst message you can possibly send. Come in, don’t worry about the laws, don’t wait your turn. You invite people to ignore our laws. We have no knowledge of these individuals’ background or criminal histories. We have minors coming in right now who have confessed to murder. We in these communities are left trying to find out: who are these people? If didn’t learn anything else post-9/11, it’s that we need to know who is in our communities and what they’re purpose is.  he President’s planned order is a formula for national disaster and public safety.”

Hodgson added that the message—and invitation—Obama is sending to the rest of the world through an executive amnesty could undermine the United States' system of government.

“When the President of the United States is sending a message that he’s not concerned with lawbreaking, those words are the beginning of the destruction of our democracy,” Hodgson said. “When you have the President saying you can come in unlawfully without consequence, basically the President is saying to do the world: don’t respect our laws. That’s I worry about: if you don’t protect the framework of democracy, then you risk losing democracy itself.”

Voter Fraud

Its no secret that after this mid-term election, Obama will do executive amnesty for illegals, assuring the Democrats a majority for the forseeable future and turning the U.S. into a one-party country.  That is unless American politicians, especially Republicans, get their heads out of their asses and do something aobut it.  Voter ID should have been one of the issues in the forefront of political discourse. But no, the issue will get lip service from now until Tuesday, then be put to rest until the next election.  Here are some articles about voter fraud in the current election. Keep in mind these are states with early voting.

Massive Non-Citizen Voting Uncovered in Maryland

Posted By Bryan Preston On October 29, 2014 @ 11:45 pm In Election Fraud,News,Politics |

An election integrity watchdog group is suing the state of Maryland, alleging that it has discovered massive and ongoing fraudulent voting by non-U.S. citizens in one county. But because of the way that the non-citizens are able to cast votes in elections, the fraud is likely happening in every single county and subdivision across the state. The group believes that the illegal voting has been happening for years.

The group, Virginia Voters Alliance, says that it compared how voters in Frederick County filled out jury duty statements compared with their voting records. The group’s investigation found that thousands of people in Frederick County who stated that they are not U.S. citizens on jury duty forms went on to cast votes in elections. Either they failed to tell the truth when they were summoned for jury duty, or they cast illegal votes. Both are crimes. The same group previously found that about 40,000 people are registered to vote in both Virginia and Maryland.

It is a federal crime to cast votes if you are not legally eligible to vote. Non-citizens, whether in the country legally or not, are prohibited from voting in most local and all state and federal elections. Yet the VVA investigation found that hundreds of non-citizens have been voting in Frederick County, Maryland. One in seven Maryland residents are non-U.S. citizens.

“The lawsuit is the equivalent of the lookout spotting the iceberg ahead of the Titanic,” state Del. Pat McDonough told the Tatler. He added that the group’s investigation found a voter fraud “smoking gun.”

Maryland state law makes it easier for non-citizens, both those present legally and those in the country against the law, to vote. Maryland issues drivers licenses to legal and illegal aliens. Driver’s licenses in turn make it easier under the Motor Voter law to register to vote. Maryland also offers copious taxpayer-funded social programs to non-citizens in the state.

The group filed suit in Baltimore’s U.S. District Court on Friday. They are suing the Frederick County Board of Elections and the Maryland State Board of Elections.

Del. Pat McDonough (R-Baltimore and Harford Counties) detailed the alleged fraud in a Maryland press conference today. He is calling for a special state prosecutor because the fraud may be taking place statewide, with significant impact on Maryland elections. Maryland currently holds 10 electoral votes in presidential elections. McDonough is also proposing legislation including voter ID to close the loopholes that he says non-citizens are using to cast votes.
In a statement, Del. McDonough says:

There are frequent allegations in America and Maryland about the existence of voter fraud. In the case I am presenting today, there is documentation and a track record. The numbers and facts from the records in Frederick County are the tip of the iceberg. When these numbers are multiplied by including the other subdivisions in Maryland, the potential number is alarming and could change the outcome of a close statewide election.

Even more dangerous is the probability of many local elections that are decided by a few votes could be affected. All 188 members of the Maryland General Assembly are standing for re-election as well as many local office holders.

The important election that we have coming up demands that citizens’ votes are not diluted or cancelled by non-citizens who are not legally permitted to vote. The sanctity of the ballot box, because of the flawed system we are pointing out, has already been violated in previous elections.
The purpose of the lawsuit is to mandate those responsible for the administration of the election process will remove the non-citizens from the final voting count.

The purpose of the investigation by the special prosecutor is to penetrate more deeply statewide and determine why this fraud or any other related violation was allowed to occur.

The purpose of the legislation is to plug the massive loophole in current law which permitted these fraudulent practices to take place.

Maryland is a Democratic stronghold especially around its larger cities, but the governor’s race there is tightening as Republican Larry Hogan gains ground. Illegal votes could tip the balance if the legal vote is close enough on election day. “What if Hogan loses by 500 votes or 1000 votes?” McDonough asked.

Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley is expected to run for the Democratic nomination for president in 2016. Del. McDonough noted that the fraud uncovered by VVA occurred on O’Malley’s watch.
----------------------------
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE www.nationalreview.com             

October 30, 2014 10:00 AM

Non-Citizens Are Voting

James O’Keefe documents the problem in North Carolina, where the Senate race is close.

By John Fund

Could non-citizen voting be a problem in next week’s elections, and perhaps even swing some very close elections?

A new study by two Old Dominion University professors, based on survey data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, indicated that 6.4 percent of all non-citizens voted illegally in the 2008 presidential election, and 2.2 percent in the 2010 midterms. Given that 80 percent of non-citizens lean Democratic, they cite Al Franken ’s 312-vote win in the 2008 Minnesota U.S. Senate race as one likely tipped by non-citizen voting. As a senator, Franken cast the 60th vote needed to make Obamacare law.

North Carolina features one of the closest Senate races in the country this year, between Democratic incumbent Kay Hagan and Republican Thom Tillis. So what guerrilla filmmaker James O’Keefe, the man who has uncovered voter irregularities in states ranging from Colorado to New Hampshire, has learned in North Carolina is disturbing. This month, North Carolina officials found at least 145 illegal aliens, still in the country thanks to the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, registered to vote. Hundreds of other non-citizens may be on the rolls.

A voter-registration card is routinely issued without any identification check, and undocumented workers can use it for many purposes, including obtaining a driver’s license and qualifying for a job. And if a non-citizen has a voter-registration card, there are plenty of campaign operatives who will encourage him or her to vote illegally.

O’Keefe had a Brazilian-born immigrant investigator pose as someone who wanted to vote but was not a citizen. Greg Amick, the campaign manager for the Democrat running for sheriff in Mecklenburg County (Charlotte), was only too happy to help.

Greg Amick: Here’s a couple of things you can do. You do not have to have your driver’s license, but do you have any sort of identification?
Project Veritas investigator: But I do have my driver’s license.
Amick: Oh, you do. Show ’em that and you’re good.
PV: But the only problem, you know, I don’t want to vote if I’m not legal. I think that’s going to be a problem. I’m not sure.
Amick: It won’t be, it shouldn’t be an issue at all.
PV: No?
Amick: As long as you are registered to vote, you’ll be fine.

But North Carolina officials shouldn’t be “fine” with Amick, who appears to be afoul of a state law making it a felony “for any person, knowing that a person is not a citizen of the United States, to instruct or coerce that person to register to vote or to vote.”

The anything-goes attitude towards non-citizen voting crosses party lines. A campaign worker for the Republican running against Amick’s candidate for sheriff even called her boss before telling the O’Keefe investigator that it was for fine for non-citizens to vote: “Welcome aboard.”

Martin Kelly, whose son is running as a Democrat for superior-court judge in Mecklenburg, was blasé when asked whether non-citizens could vote. Kelly: “If you registered . . . [shrugs shoulders]. All they can do is say no. They can’t do anything else.”

Hans von Spakovsky, my co-author on a book we wrote on voter fraud in 2012, was in Charlotte on Monday for an NPR town hall on voting issues. “The local audience seemed skeptical that anyone in their state would be willing to commit fraud despite prior incidents,” he told me. “The O’Keefe video shows just how naïve they were.”

It’s no wonder that the two Old Dominion professors concluded that non-citizen votes may have been responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. “Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.”

The authors’ paper is consistent with other credible reports of non-citizen voting. For example, Colorado’s Republican secretary of state, Scott Gessler, unveiled a study in 2011 showing that almost 5,000 illegal aliens cast votes in the U.S. Senate election in that state in 2010.

In 2005, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that up to 3 percent of the 30,000 people called for jury duty from voter-registration rolls over a two-year period in one of the 94 current U.S. district courts were non-citizens.

In 2012, a local NBC station in Fort Myers, Fla., found that at least 100 individuals in one county had been excused from jury duty because they were not citizens but were registered to vote. Hinako Dennett, who is not a citizen, told the station that she voted “every year.”

A 1996 congressional race in California may have been stolen by non-citizen voting. Democrat Loretta Sanchez won by only 979 votes, and an investigation by the House Committee on Oversight turned up 624 invalid ballots cast by non-citizens who were on federal immigration records, along with 124 improper absentee ballots. The committee found “circumstantial” evidence of 196 additional non-citizen votes that it did not include in its tally. Its investigation could not determine the number of illegal-alien votes that might have been cast: “If there is a significant number of ‘documented aliens’ in INS records and on the Orange County voter registration rolls, how many illegal or undocumented aliens may be registered to vote in Orange County?”

An accurate assessment of the magnitude of non-citizen voting is difficult. There is no systematic check of voter-registration rolls by states to find non-citizens, and the relevant federal agencies refuse — in direct violation of federal law — to cooperate with those few state election officials who attempt to verify citizenship status.

In declining to cooperate with a request by Maryland for information on the citizenship status of registered voters, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service mistakenly declared that the agency could not release that data because “it is important to safeguard the confidentiality of each legal immigrant.” One result of this policy: In 2004, a guilty verdict in a murder trial in Maryland was jeopardized because a non-citizen was discovered on the jury, which had been drawn from local voter rolls. Maryland’s frustrated elections administrator complained, “There is no way of checking. . . . We have no access to any information about who is in the United States, legally or otherwise.”

Some states have tried to take action. Kansas and Arizona have put in place new commonsense proof-of-citizenship requirements for registration to prevent illegal voting. But activist groups such as the League of Women Voters and Common Cause routinely challenge such measures in the courts.

To demand compliance with our laws — all of our laws — requires no more of an alien than we demand of any citizen. It is a violation of both state and federal law for immigrants who are not citizens to vote. The violations effectively disenfranchise legitimate voters by diluting their votes. We can show respect for the rights of those within our borders and at the same time prevent people from violating our voting laws either through willful intent or because they were led astray by others.
— John Fund is national-affairs correspondent for NRO and co-author, with Hans von Spakovsky, of Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk.

---------------------------

http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/29/la-raza-promotes-washington-post-guide-on-where-people-can-vote-without-an-id/

La Raza Promotes Washington Post Guide On Where People Can Vote Without An ID
Posted By Patrick Howley On 10:02 AM 10/29/2014 In | No Comments

The pro-amnesty Hispanic activist organization the National Council of La Raza helpfully promoted a Washington Post article explaining which states people can vote in without having to use a photo ID.

“Voter ID laws are at-issue across the country, with newly Republican-controlled legislatures having passed them in numerous states after the 2010 election,” explained The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake. “Most states still request some form of ID, but don’t require it. Another 20 states don’t require identification. In case you’re wondering where your state is at in all of this, a helpful (sic) graphic from the Post’s graphics team.”

So who ended up using the Post’s helpful graphic? The country’s foremost pro-amnesty Hispanic immigrant organization.

The Chicago chapter of Asian Americans Advancing Justice tweeted Blake’s article with the message, “Reminder — #Illinois does NOT require #voterID to cast a ballot,” along with the pro-Democrat hashtag #TurnOutForWhat. The tweet was helpfully retweeted by the National Council of La Raza.

CDC, Ebola, and Ebama

Why does the CDC get so much respect? The CDC director, Dr. Tom Frieden, has been talking out of both sides of his mouth during the current Ebola crisis. This used to be an organization that, unlike other government agencies, was generally immune to partisan politics and was well-respected as a public health entity by the citizenry. Now, under Frieden's leadership, my respect for the organization has deteriorated and I don't trust them anymore.  Ebama has screwed this up too.  The CDD tells me that Ebola can only be contracted when you come in contact with the bodily fluids of an infected person. And by the say, they are only contagious when they are showing symptoms.  I call bullshit on both assertions.  The science behind Ebola is incomplete and suspect, in my opinion, and I believe an overabundance of caution is warranted.

Yet the Ebama administration will not take common sense steps, like preventing flights from West Africa to enter the country.  Potential Ebola carriers like that idiot woman in New England and the infected doctor that wandered around New York City should be forcibly quarantined. They are just selfish pricks who think they're better than everyone else.  If we are going to quarrantine U.S. soldiers returning from West Africa, then we should quarantine civilians as well.

http://nypost.com/2014/10/29/cdc-admits-droplets-from-a-sneeze-could-spread-ebola/

CDC admits droplets from a sneeze could spread Ebola

By Bob Fredericks

Ebola is a lot easier to catch than health officials have admitted — and can be contracted by contact with a doorknob contaminated by a sneeze from an infected person an hour or more before, experts told The Post Tuesday.

“If you are sniffling and sneezing, you produce microorganisms that can get on stuff in a room. If people touch them, they could be” infected, said Dr. Meryl Nass, of the Institute for Public Accuracy in Washington, DC.

Nass pointed to a poster the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention quietly released on its Web site saying the deadly virus can be spread through “droplets.”

“Droplet spread happens when germs traveling inside droplets that are coughed or sneezed from a sick person enter the eyes, nose or mouth of another person,” the poster states.

Nass slammed the contradiction.

“The CDC said it doesn’t spread at all by air, then Friday they came out with this poster,” she said. “They admit that these particles or droplets may land on objects such as doorknobs and that Ebola can be transmitted that way.”

Dr. Rossi Hassad, a professor of epidemiology at Mercy College, said droplets could remain active for up to a day.

“A shorter duration for dry surfaces like a table or doorknob, and longer durations in a moist, damp environment,” Hassad said.

The CDC did not respond to a request for comment.

Executive Amnesty

Sessions: 'The World Has Turned Upside Down'

Daniel Halper

October 30, 2014 1:17 PM

Senator Jeff Sessions will soon release this statement in response to a report in the Wall Street Journal that details President Obama's plans to unilaterally implement amnesty.

"The Wall Street Journal confirmed today that the President is planning to issue a massive unilateral executive amnesty after the election.
"In its report, the WSJ certifies that this executive amnesty would provide work permits for illegal immigrants—taking jobs directly from struggling Americans.
"Based on the USCIS contract bid and statements from USCIS employees, we know this executive immigration order is likely to be broader in scope than anyone has imagined.
"Earlier this week, President Obama’s former head of Homeland Security revealed that she overrode resistance from administration lawyers and law enforcement agents in implementing the President’s earlier unlawful amnesty and work authorization program for illegal immigrants 30 and under. This was an open admission by one of the most senior people in government of violating one’s oath of office in order to accomplish a nakedly political aim.
"The President is assuming for himself the sole and absolute power to decide who can enter, work, live, and claim benefits in the United States. He has exempted virtually every group in the world from America’s immigration laws: people who enter before a certain age, people related to people who enter before a certain age, adults traveling with minors, minors traveling with adults, illegal immigrants who are not convicted of serious crimes, illegal workers who are convicted of serious crimes but not enough serious crimes, almost anyone who shows up the border and demands asylum, the millions who overstay their visas, and, as was recently exposed, illegal immigrants with serious criminal histories. The list continues to grow.
"A nation creates borders and laws to protect its own citizens. What about their needs?
"The President is systemically stripping away the immigration protections to which every single American worker and their family is entitled. He doesn’t care how this impacts Americans’ jobs, wages, schools, tax bills, hospitals, police departments, or communities.
"But it gets worse still. The WSJ reports that the President is ‘expected to benefit businesses that use large numbers of legal immigrants, such as technology companies.’ Those changes include measures to massively expand the number of foreign workers for IT companies—measures aggressively lobbied for by IT giants like Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates. Yet we have more than 11 million Americans with STEM degrees who don’t have jobs in these fields. Rutgers professor Hal Salzman documented that two-thirds of all new IT jobs are being filled by foreign workers. From 2000 through today, a period of record legal immigration, all net gains in employment among the working-age have gone entirely to immigrant workers.
"And now, in order to help open borders billionaires, President Obama is going to deny millions of Americans their shot at entering the middle class and a better life.
"The world has turned upside down. Instead of serving the interests of the American people, the policies of President Obama and every Senate Democrat serve the needs of special interests and global CEOs who fail to understand the duty a nation owes to its own people. But the citizens of this country still hold the power, and through their voice, they can turn the country right-side again."

Obama's Deadly Ebola Failure-Rush Limbaugh Transcript

Obama's Deadly Ebola Failure
October 15, 2014

Windows Media

 

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I was just telling the staff here, ladies and gentlemen, I have never felt happier, I've never felt better about being a hermit, about being a recluse. Man, oh man, I thought rampant incompetence was taking place, but even I had no idea how bad it is. No, I don't think it's peaked yet. Sadly, I do not.

Greetings. It's Rush Limbaugh. These the EIB Network. We're happy to have you here. It's a thrill and delight to be with you. It always is. The telephone number, if you want to be on the program, is 1-800-282-2882. And the e-mail address, ElRushbo@eibnet.com. '
Now, there's a lot to do every day, and I can open the program the same way every day by telling you I can't get it all in even if I try for three hours. This may be one of those days. I mean, we're literally loaded. I've got four or five things here that all would qualify as being the top story that I would lead with. Ebola has to be it.
 
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: You probably have heard by now the second medical worker at the Dallas hospital has tested positive for Ebola. And, ladies and gentlemen, the newest Ebola patient flew Frontier Airlines the day before her diagnosis. Not Air Africa. Not Air Liberia not Air Nigeria. Not Air Sierra Leone, but Frontier Airlines.

"The second Dallas health care worker who contracted the Ebola virus was on a flight the day before her symptoms," according to the wizards at the Centers for Disease Control. It was Frontier Airlines, flight 1143, Cleveland to Dallas. The CDC is asking all 132 passengers who were on the flight to call the CDC phone number. Those 132 passengers will be monitored for symptoms and interviewed about the flight.

According to the crew, the healthcare worker showed no symptoms. Wait a minute. Wait just a minute! The director of the CDC says that if somebody doesn't show symptoms, you can't get it. Obama said it's not coming here. And even if it does, we are perfectly equipped to handle it. We're not. And it has. It was brought here. We brought it here.

What are we dealing with here? What is the point of all this? The whole story of this outbreak hinges on a few things that the government and the Drive-Bys have tried very, very hard to hammer into truth. One of those things is in the unlikely event anyone gets it, we've got protocols in place to isolate and handle this. No, apparently we don't. And it's only contagious if you show symptoms.
The second healthcare worker who tested positive for Ebola last night flew by air October 13th, the day before she reported symptoms, said the CDC. Frontier Airlines Flight 1143, Cleveland to Dallas. The CDC is asking all 132 passengers who were on the flight to call them. Passengers will be monitored for symptoms and interviewed about the flight. According to the flight crew -- I guess if you like your flight crew you can keep your flight crew -- according to the crew, the healthcare worker showed no Ebola symptoms during Flight 1143.

Well, now, look, the CDC said you can't catch this if you aren't showing any symptoms. So why do they want to talk to the other passengers? If you can't get the disease from somebody who has got the virus but isn't showing symptoms, if they have to be showing symptoms, and she wasn't while on the Frontier flight, then why do they want to talk to the other passengers? And how about the people in the security line with her or at the restaurant in the airport, wherever she was, or outside with the skycaps. Or in the ladies' room. I'm sorry, folks, I didn't know. I assumed.

A friend of mine today sent me a note about this, said, "Yeah, second victim, got on a commercial flight." I wrote back and said, "What's commercial?" Just teasing. Her cab driver, whatever, everyone she came into contact with. How did she get there? It can't happen. We were told it can't happen. Now, I don't know how many people believe these people. That's another thing. I mean, you see the CDC guy on TV. This is a dangerous thing. People have an implicit trust in government. Doesn't matter who is running it. And these people are just -- I mean, this is glaring incompetence.

We've got people who have no business being in the positions they're in, from Obama on down. No business whatsoever. Frieden has no business being there. He has no business being the Centers for Disease Control director. Has no clue. It's patently obvious. There were basically three things that the government and the media tried to hammer into us to believe as the truth. In the unlikely event anybody gets it we've got protocols in place to isolate and handle it. Well, the nurses have blown that out of the water. The nurses involved in all these hospitals have blown everything the CDC director has said out of the water.

They said it's only contagious if you show symptoms. Hello, passenger, Frontier Airlines, and it can only be passed through bodily fluids, not through the air. Then why do they want to talk to these hundred passengers? Did they all touch her? The entire credibility of the US government requires all of these things to be true. They assured us that these things were all true.

This CDC director continues to say some of the most nonsensical things about containing this disease in Africa, while at the same time saying that we can't. In the same sentence, he will say we've got to contain it in Africa, but any effort to contain it in Africa, it's unfair and it's biased or whatever the hell his cockamamie brain tells him it is. It's just confusing as it can be. The entire credibility of the US government requires all three of these things to be true and none of them are.
You don't need the flight from Africa. Now you've gotta ban flights to Dallas, apparently. If you read between the lines on this second medical worker at the Dallas hospital tested positive for Ebola, if you read between the lines it looks like they're suggesting that this person must have failed to follow a different protocol from what the first nurse is supposed to have failed to follow, which is pretty amazing since we still don't know what protocol Nurse Pham failed to follow. But they dumped on her, if you remember. They blamed her for not following protocol, and we don't know what protocol the second nurse violated here.

And I've just received word -- this is big -- Obama has cancelled a fund raiser. Those never get cancelled. Not even Benghazi cancelled a fundraiser. Nothing cancels fundraisers. But Obama has cancelled a fundraising trip to hold a meeting on Ebola. The optics must really be bad here, folks, because it's all about the optics. It's all about the buzz and the PR. It's all about the election. And now the media, "Will Obama canceling his fundraising trip hurt him in the election?" That will be the media take on this.

On top of all that, folks, we're now being told by the nurse's union in Dallas, there were no CDC protocols for the nurses to follow when Thomas Duncan showed up in the ER. Now stop and think of that for just a second. The Ebola outbreak in Africa began in the early spring, March or April. It's not a secret. It isn't a mystery. And as we got into the summer, it really started claiming lives in great numbers. It was well known how bad this outbreak was. It was well known that there wasn't a cure. It was well known that the death rate was being expressed by experts, if there are any anymore, as between 50 and 90 percent.

We were told we got protocols in place. We have the situation handled. Everything okay. And now the nurses union in Dallas says that there weren't any protocols from the CDC for the nurses to follow in the ER when Thomas Duncan showed up. They had to wing it. And winging it involved wrapping medical tape around their necks four or five times, to keep their skin from being exposed to Duncan's bodily fluids because of the gaps in their protective clothing.

See, they're not wearing hazmat gear. You'll see in the media that the nurses are wearing full gear, whatever. It's not. It's gowns, it's gloves, and it's masks and shields. But they're not airtight. Besides that, people in full hazmat gear did contract the disease in Africa. Now, on top of all of that, can you imagine the nurses wrapping medical tape around their necks four or five times, on their own, they just decided to. There weren't any protocols, they're saying.

On top of that, the nurses union is also claiming that Mr. Duncan sat in the ER for hours like everybody else who goes to the ER sits there for hours. The nurses union claims that Thomas Duncan sat in the ER for hours. That was a long time before he was put in isolation. And they say that he probably had contact with at least seven other patients while he was sitting in the ER waiting room waiting to be dealt with. And on top of that -- we keep piling things on here -- the nurses who treated Mr. Duncan went on to treat other patients. There was no isolation. There was no quarantine.
I remember praising these health workers and everybody was complaining and whining and moaning, I said, "Folks, we've got to trust they know what they're doing. They're treating these patients. They know full well." They were not given protocols. The nurses who treated Duncan went on to treat other patients, and we were assured by the CDC for weeks that every hospital in the nation was prepared to handle Ebola cases and they weren't.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now I want to go through three things here again. First, I want to draw a contrast with you. The whole story of this outbreak, the entire story of this Ebola outbreak hinges on three things we've been told by the government and their sycophant slavish supporters in the media, as true.
One, in the unlikely event that anybody gets it we have protocols in place to isolate and handle it.
Two, it's only contagious if you show symptoms.

And three, it can only be passed through bodily fluids, not through the air.

All of that is wrong. All of that has been demonstrated to be not just wrong, dangerously wrong, incompetently dangerously wrong. And now I want to take you back, remember Hurricane Katrina and remember the cacophony of whining and moaning and accusations the left was making against Bush for botching the recovery effort in Katrina and leaving people alone to die?
Where is anything like that? There isn't. They're all circling the wagons around Obama. They're circling the wagons around themselves and pretty soon we're gonna get a fall guy, probably Frieden, to take the hit for all of this. That will probably be the outgrowth of the meeting that Obama is having.

But I want to ask you a question: Ask yourself which is harder, organizing a relief effort to transport across an entire continent, everything from soup to nuts to tens of thousands of people, to bottled water, to food, to temporary housing, coordinating that effort down to New Orleans to handle the homeless, the jobless, the destitute. Or, stopping Liberians from flying into the country. Which of those two is harder? All we had to do was keep flights from Africa from landing in the United States. That's all they had to do. And they wouldn't do it.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: The flight crew, ladies and gentlemen, on Frontier Airlines 1143 Cleveland to Dallas said that the health care worker showed no Ebola symptoms. How do they know? Look at what we believe. They say, "No, they didn't see any symptoms," and we go, "Oh, okay! The flight crew didn't see any symptoms." People just throw things out, and you've gotta catch yourself, folks, because it's easy to believe

You want to believe these things. I'm not saying the flight crew has ulterior motives. I just don't know what expertise they've got. All these efforts to reassure people are fine, I understand not wanting to cause a panic, but for crying out loud, if there was ever a case for the mayor for Realville, this is it. How does the flight crew know the patient had no symptoms?

Even if she wasn't exhibiting symptoms, then what does that make of what Frieden told us, the CDC director? "Well you can't get this disease if the patient isn't showing symptoms. It's not transferable. It's not contagious." Really? Well the flight crew says she wasn't showing symptoms. What do they know? What does the flight crew know that the CDC director does not know? And they probably do know more!

This guy is just a typical, touchy-feely lib that wants to be judged on his intentions, like they all do. He wants to be judged on his intentions his big heart and how much he cares and so forth, as if that gets things done. These people on the left believe just saying something accomplishes something. Proclaiming something makes it so. Giving a speech changes the world, lowers the sea levels or what have you.

I'll tell you what makes people think that is just pure arrogance. Arrogance and conceit.

The idea that they're better, the idea that they're smarter, the idea that they care more, the idea that their intentions are more honorable and so forth, and the idea that their political opponents are racists, sexists, bigots, and homophobes? All of that stuff is relevant here. The Democrat Party unfairly benefits from an image of all of this compassion and all of this caring and all these good intentions, and they haven't earned it.

What they've earned is distrust. Mistrust. What they've earned is the realization that they're not competent. We don't have the best and brightest and the smartest in these key positions, and not just here. It's true in the judiciary, it's true at all these government bureaucracies, and every day the news is filled with evidence of this. Let's go back to the nurses union claiming that Mr. Duncan sat in the ER for hours.

How many have been to the ER? I've been to the ER. I haven't ever really gone but I've had to take people. But I don't know why they call it "emergency." Nobody's acting like there's any emergency an any ER room that I've been to, and I'm not being critical of medical people here. I'm just making an observation. Nobody is in a hurry unless somebody comes in who is not breathing.
If somebody comes in on a stretcher, bam! They do something. Walk in there and you have a genuine emergency, and it's get in line and wait like a doctor's office. That's the point. You get in line. You sit and you wait with a whole lot of other people doing the same thing. Except when Duncan went in there, we had an Ebola patient sitting around and he was exhibiting symptoms.
But who knew?

Nobody was told.

The nurses didn't even know. The nurses weren't given the protocols. After they treated him the first time, they sent him home. They didn't know what they were dealing with. Now, we can be critical and say, "Were they not paying attention to the news?" But these people, these places are very regimented. Protocols. Policies. The manual. The book. That's how you do things. Step outside of that and you get reprimanded.

Take matters into your own hands?

"Ah, ah, ah, ah!" The protocol supersedes, dominates everything. And in a situation where you've got fear of violating protocol, you're going to adhere to the protocol. In this case, it was a protocol that didn't exist and it wasn't applicable. It was a long time before Duncan was put in isolation. He probably had contact with at least seven other patients and who knows how many other people in the ER.

On top of that, the nurses who treated Duncan went on to treat other patients. Bear in mind during all of this that we were assured by the CDC for weeks that every hospital in the country was prepared to handle the Ebola cases. Obama told us. The CDC director told us. Flight crews may as well have told us. Now, I still maintain, like I just said, contrasting Katrina.

Remember that? Here you had a nationwide mobilization effort to get people, supplies, repairs, temporary electricity. Any number of things needed to be done in New Orleans after Katrina went through. It was a nationwide mobilization effort, and remember how the left -- and I'm sorry, folks, it is political. I don't care.

The sooner everybody realizes this and stops chewing my face off because, it would be better off. This is all political. The motivation for the people in charge here is politics, politics, politics. First, second, third. Because it always, always, always is. The substance of whatever they're dealing with is way down on the list. The politics, the ramifications. The opportunity that politics presents.
"Never let a crisis go to waste," as Rahm Emanuel said. Here it is. I still maintain that it would have been much easier to just ban flights from Africa than what Bush had to deal with during Katrina. Yet these same people, they're praising themselves for being so smart, doing the right thing, having so much compassion and care and love for their fellow man and so forth.
They just couldn't wait to hammer Bush and browbeat everybody else that they wanted to accuse of totally botching Katrina, and they were throwing charges of racism around. Bush didn't care because there were black people in New Orleans, and he especially didn't care because more black people leaving New Orleans and going to Houston would be better for the Republicans because that would mean fewer blacks voting in Louisiana.

That's the way they were thinking. That's what they were charging. Those were the accusations they were leveling at Bush. All the while the Bush administration was leading a nationwide mobilizing effort to get supplies, repairs, assistance into New Orleans. They'd told them to get out of the city. Meanwhile, School Bus Nagin is over there blameless. That governor, Kathleen Blanco? She was blameless.

Those two were the culprits in this for not being prepared. Want to talk about not prepared? How about all the school buses. I don't want to focus on Katrina. But my focus is the same people leveling all these baseless, centrist, mean-spirited, extreme political charges at Bush and his regime with administration Katrina. How hard would it have been to ban airplanes from landing in this country from Africa?

That's all they had to do, folks!

That is the first failure in their precious protocol was not closing our airports to people from Ebola countries, and we know why. "That would have been really mean, because we couldn't turn our backs on Liberia, especially because of slavery! Yes, because we had slavery! Liberia was set up so people who had been slaves could escape the horrors of this country and set up in their own paradise in Liberia, and we can never turn our backs on them."

That's why we didn't shut down flights from Ebola countries in Africa. So far we have at least two more people who are at risk of dying because we refused to take that single precaution, and we refused to take that single precaution all because it wouldn't look nice and it wouldn't seem fair. You see, it's just not fair that they have Ebola in Africa and we don't. That's not fair.

No, I'm not saying that they define fairness as us then getting Ebola. No, no, no. Don't misunderstand. I'm saying their preoccupation with diversity, equality and fairness and all this other stuff, leads them to not taking correct protective measures for the United States of America. Pure and simple. Whatever happened to that old argument? What if a Republican had come out and said: "If stopping flights from west Africa might just save one child..."?

Remember the Democrats used to say that? Remember there was a presidential debate in '96, Bob Dole and Clinton? It was Dole, right? He was the nominee. Right. Dole actually mounted a very substantive charge at Clinton based on his catting around, his immorality, lying under oath and all that sort of stuff. Clinton's reply was to smile and to say (impression): "No attack, especially on me, ever fed a hungry child."

The audience and media started crying. "Oh my God, he's so good!" Well, what if somebody had stood up and said, "If stopping flights from Africa might save just one child..."? I don't know. The Centers for Disease Control? If you didn't know, if you just landed here from Mars you might want to call them the Centers for Disease Redistribution. Because that's what's happening: CDR.

CNN is currently gob smacked (meaning they're incredulous) at the news that the latest Ebola victim was allowed to fly to Cleveland the day before he or she was diagnosed. They just don't understand this. CDC is now asking anyone on that flight Frontier 1143 to get a hold of them immediately. But we don't need to close the airports. No, no, no, no! You can't get it from somebody not showing symptoms.

Then why do they want to talk to them? Why do they want to screen them? Here's part of a CDC statement: "The health care worker exhibited no signs or symptoms of illness while on Flight 1143 according to the crew." Did the crew take her temperature? Did the crew feel her forehead?
Why would they have noticed her out of 132 passengers? There were 132 people on that plane. How did the crew know to focus on this patient if she wasn't showing symptoms? (interruption) TSA protocols, really? You mean focus on Grammy? Is that what it is? Here's more from the CDC statement:

"The health care worker exhibited no signs or symptoms of illness while on Flight 1143, according to the crew." I got nothing against the crew, but what did they do? Did they just eyeball it and say, "Hey, she looks perfectly healthy to me"? Do they have one of those laser guns that you zap somebody with that supposedly can tell their temperature? Did they do that?
Have to take another timeout, my friends. Be patient. Courage.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Okay. Let's go to the phones, because if I don't, it's going to be a while. I just have to discipline myself here to get to the phones get something in here. It's only the polite thing to do. We invite them to call and they've been patiently waiting here.
We'll start in a town named after me, no doubt, Rushville Ohio. This is Sam. It's great to have you, Sam.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. We were here before you.
RUSH: Well, that's just the way it is then.
CALLER: Just the way it is. My question is, in the infinite wisdom of the CDC, why did they not tell these people that worked in that hospital not to travel until they know for sure?
RUSH: Great question. Just add that one to the list.
CALLER: Yes, sir.
RUSH: These are the kind of things we thought they were going to be doing. Monitoring all of these people. This is a nurse in there who treated Duncan, was involved, we thought they were going to be monitoring. For crying out loud, we quarantined the NBC medical person, Nancy Snyderman, because she violated the voluntary quarantine to go to some leftist soup Nazi place and get a bowl of soup. So we found her, we quarantined her. By the way, the media is all hipped up about that.
It might be time, in addition to phone calls, to do some sound bites. Let's start with number four, Mike Rawlings, he is the mayor of Dallas. This was from this morning at Texas Presbyterian Hospital during a press conference.

RAWLINGS: While Dallas is anxious about this and with this news this morning the anxiety level goes up a level, we are not fearful. And I'm pleased and proud of the citizens that I talk to day in and day out, knowing that there's hope if we take care and do what is right in these details. It may get worse before it gets better, but it will get better.

RUSH: Well, we have some reassuring news from the mayor of Dallas. I thought you would want to hear that. It may get worse before it gets better, but it will get better. Well, yeah, Ebola does run out of victims at some point. Here's Daniel Varga. Dr. Daniel Varga, Texas Health Resources Chief Clinical Officer at the same press conference, Texas Presbyterian Hospital this morning.

VARGA: I want to thank the mayor, the judge, the CDC, state health officials and the Dallas County Health Department for their continued partnership as we manage this unprecedented crisis. As others have said this morning, today's development, while concerning and unfortunate, is continued evidence that our monitoring program is working. We're a hospital that may have done some things different with the benefit of what we know today, but makes no mistake, no one wants to get this right more than our hospital.

RUSH: So they're working on it. And they're doing what they can do. And they're doing what they have to do. They're dealing with public reaction to all this the best they can. But everybody's doing this on the fly. That's the takeaway here, folks. Dr. Frieden of the CDC was going on and on about how precious the protocols are, and we've got them in place. Yes, our protocols are being followed and we've got our manual here and protocol here, protocol there, all the protocols. Everybody's winging it, is what's happening.

If there are protocols, nobody can find them to follow them. If there are protocols, nobody knows what they are. And they could be changing. Yes, they are changing. Frieden even said they're going to change the protocols, yesterday.

The BBC has decided to ban guests from Ebola countries. "The BBC will ban guests from its buildings if they have Ebola symptoms as staff admitted they fear they will catch it. Star broadcaster Fiona Bruce, 50, has revealed that staff including make-up artists are fearful because they have physical contact with guests from high risk countries.

The newsreader said their fears are 'not unreasonable' and admitted she would refuse to report from an Ebola-stricken region."

The news schmooze, notwithstanding, the hell with the news. I'm not going there to report and we're not letting any Ebola people into our building. The BBC. The Beeb, a bunch of leftists.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: The White House has announced Obama is going to have a statement, a statement at 3:30 this afternoon after his meeting on Ebola. He's cancelled a fundraising trip, which is a major cancellation for Obama to cancel a fundraiser. He didn't cancel a fundraising trip for Benghazi! He got on a plane for Vegas (after telling everybody not to go there).

He got on a plane for Vegas and another fundraiser, and that's all he's been doing lately. But he's cancelled a fundraising trip to have an Ebola meeting. The Ebola meeting is happening right now and there's going to be a statement he's going to make after that meeting at 3:30, which means 4:00 because he's always late, and at 4:00 (4:07, actually) is Game 4 of the Orioles-Royals American League Championship Series.

I got a note from sometime host of this show Douglas Urbanski. He said, "You're absolutely right. 'Never let a crisis go to waste,' is applicable here. But there's a part two. Don't forget part two." He's dead on right about this. "It was Rahm Emanuel who famously said, 'Never let a crisis go to waste,' meaning, 'Whatever crisis we're going to politicize the damn thing and use it to our advantage!'
"But he also said -- this is part two -- the reason you never let a crisis go to waste is because you get to do things you otherwise would not be able to do, and that is the real key to never letting a crisis go to waste, and we've got a crisis. We've got people who like to utilize crises for political purposes because they get to do things they otherwise would not be able to do. Just a little heads-up."
Also some breaking news: One of the Dallas health worker Ebola patients will be transferred to Emory University Hospital in Atlanta for treatment. Emory is one of those four hospitals with a real isolation unit. There are only four in the country, and they have a grand total of 11 beds. Did you know that? We've got four hospitals with real isolation units -- and in those four hospitals, a grand total of 11 beds.

Now, Mr. Duncan wasn't taken there. Thomas Duncan wasn't taken to Emory. No, no! Thomas Duncan, they left him in Dallas. (interruption) "Why?" Well, that's for others to answer, Mr. Snerdley, and I'm sure the Reverend Jackson will at some point. Don't you? Aren't you? Aren't you fairly certain that the Reverend Jackson will have an answer to why is this worker being taken to Emory but Thomas Duncan was not? (interruption)
No, it has nothing to do with having a better health plan. Nobody has a better health plan.

END TRANSCRIPT

Gay Marriage

The Supreme Court has decided not to hear any gay marriage cases. What bugs me is that gay marriage has been legalized by judicial activism that has over-ridden the will of the people in the states that have chosen not to legalize it. While perusing a message board where the issue was being discussed, and recognizing that readers here do not have the context of that conversation, a poster with the handle "Nightwatch" had the best comment I've seen in a while:

This whole mess illustrates why I am a conservative and not a libertarian with an utter lack of moral integrity.

This is a War on Religion in utter disregard and contempt of the US Constitution, and a complete trampling of the rule of law. 

How this was and is being done should concern even those in favor of same-sex depravity; by the wholesale disregard of the legislative process and over-ride of voter amendments to state constitutions by activist judges inventing new legal theories without any basis in our Constitution. No where in our founding documents is "marriage" listed. Anything not listed in the Constitution as a federal responsibility is reserved to the states and the people - and the Feds just overrode both the states and the people. 

Color me thoroughly disgusted with the Courts, our Feds, and our libertine libertarians who have betrayed our Constitution with some pretty inventive mental gymnastics followed by utterly unconvincing declarations of having won the argument. You all sound like (spit) liberals.

Boom!  I agree completely.

My problem with the gay community is their activism. It wasn't good enough for them to have state-recogniged Civil Unions, with all the accompanying legal rights, tax benefits, etc.  No, they had to take it one step further and attack the institution of marriage.  That's where I get pissed.

How did our world become a place where .5% to, at most, 1.8% of the population got so much political clout?  It doesn't make sense.

Article on the Global Warming Hoax

New York Magazine: How to Psychologically Fool Conservatives Into Accepting Global Warming

By P.J. Gladnick | October 2, 2014 | 10:53 AM EDT

New York magazine poses the problem of how to fool conservatives into buying the global warming beliefs. The answer provided by writer Jesse Singal is to psychologically manipulate them via long term "framing interventions."

If you think the tone of the article is dripping with condescension toward the "conservative yahoos" you would be right. One failed attempt at such obvious manipulation is to call it "climate change" instead of global warming since there has been no global warming for about the past 14 years. Of course, Singal himself has proved that he is not up to psychological manipulation speed since lately they have been calling it "climate disruption" since it was pointed out that climate always changes. Here is the author noting how conservatives were notably absent from the recent Peoples Climate March which was chock full of signs attacking capitalism and promoting socialism:

Last week’s People's Climate March drew 400,000 people onto the streets of Manhattan and a great deal of international attention to a subject of dire urgency. But some were skeptical about the event’s overall significance. “The march slogan was, ‘to change everything, we need everyone,’ which is telling, because it won’t change everything, because it didn’t include everyone,” wrote David Roberts of Grist. “Specifically, it won’t change American politics because it didn’t include conservatives.” True enough.
If there weren’t such a stark divide between American conservatives and almost everyone else on the question of the existence and importance of climate change — a divide that can approach 40 points on some polling questions — the political situation would be very different. So if any progress on climate change is going to be made through the American political system — apart from executive orders by Democratic presidents — it is going to have to somehow involve convincing a lot of conservatives that yes, climate change is a threat to civilization.
How do you do that? The answer has more to do with psychology than politics.

Time to put conservatives on the couch to analyze why they don't join the loony left in denouncing capitalism as the cause of global warm... uh, I mean climate change:

In a larger context, social scientists have shown in laboratory settings that there are ways to discuss climate change that nudge conservatives toward recognizing the issue. Research is proceeding along a few different tracks. One of them involves moral foundations theory, a hot idea in political psychology that basically argues that people holding different political beliefs arrive at those beliefs because they have different moral values (even if there’s plenty of overlap). Liberals tend to be more moved by the idea of innocent people being harmed than conservatives, for example, while conservatives are more likely to react to notions of disgust (some of the conservative rhetoric over immigration reflects this difference).

Got that? Conservatives are a bunch of uncaring yahoos so psychology must be used to manipulate them beyond their ignorance. And now we analyze those simpleton conservatives as lab rats:

In a study they published in Psychological Science in 2013, Willer and a colleague, the Stanford social psychologist Matthew Feinberg, tested the effectiveness of framing environmental issues in a way that takes into account conservatives’ moral foundations. After completing a questionnaire that included items about their political beliefs, respondents were asked to read one of three excerpts...
Another promising route that researchers are exploring involves the concept of “system justification.” Put simply, system justification arises from the deep-seated psychological need for humans to feel like the broad systems they are a part of are working correctly.

As a result of the psychological experiments on the conservative lab rats, it was discovered that "framing interventions" are only effective if they are long term:

Willer was realistic in describing the limitations of grafting language from moral foundations theory and system justification onto climate-change messages. “It’s unlikely that such a short, small framing intervention would have a long, sustained effect — that’s very unlikely,” said Willer. “The idea, we hope, is that application of these techniques in a longer-term more committed campaign would be effective and would stick.”

Of course, no input from the white coats on how to use "framing interventions" to cure those liberals, such as author Naomi Klein as well as at least half of the participants at the People's Climate March, of the notion that capitalism is the cause and socialism is the answer for global warming which morphed into climate change now revised to climate disruption.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2014/10/02/new-york-magazine-how-psychologically-fool-conservatives-accepting?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=marketing&utm_term=facebook&utm_content=facebook&utm_campaign=trick-conservatives-globalwarming


UPDATE 2/23/17

February 13, 2017

Report: Government agency refuses to discipline scientists caught cooking the books

By Rick Moran

And Democrats wonder why there are so many skeptics when it comes to conclusions reached by government scientists?

The inspector general for the National Science Foundation issued a report showing that at least 23 scientists applying for taxpayer-funded grants either plagiarized the text or manipulated data but were not barred from receiving grant money in the future.

Washington Free Beacon:

The inspector general for the National Science Foundation identified at least 23 instances of plagiarism in proposals, NSF-funded research, and agency publications in 2015 and 2016. It found at least eight instances of data manipulation and fabrication in those years. NSF officials disregarded recommended sanctions against some of the scientists and academics implicated in those findings. Though many were temporarily barred from receiving additional federal funding, nearly all will be eligible for taxpayer support and official roles in NSF-funded research in the future.
In one investigation that concluded in Nov. 2015, the IG found that an NSF-supported researcher had "knowingly plagiarized text into five NSF proposals."
"These actions were a significant departure from the standards of the research community, and therefore constituted research misconduct," according to a report on the investigation's findings.
The IG recommended to NSF that the agency officially classify the plagiarism as research misconduct, require the researcher to undergo "a course in proper research methods," certify that all research over the subsequent three years was not plagiarized, and bar the researcher from serving as an NSF consultant, advisor, or peer-reviewer.
The NSF accepted most of the recommendations, but it chose not to bar the researcher from working for NSF in an official capacity, as the IG had proposed. The researcher would be free to continue advising, consulting, and peer-reviewing taxpayer-funded research.
In another investigation, which concluded in Aug. 2016, the IG found that a university professor supported by an NSF grant "falsified the status of a total of seven manuscripts in four NSF annual grant reports and four NSF proposals" and "engaged in a total of twelve acts of research misconduct in a continuous pattern spanning several years."
"The professor's fabrication of data and falsification of manuscripts' status were intentional acts, fit a pattern of research misconduct, and were a significant departure from accepted practices," the IG concluded.
The NSF agreed, pursuant to the IG's recommendations, to debar the professor for one year and require a course on proper research methods.
However, "contrary to our recommendations," the IG wrote, the agency did not require the professor to submit certifications of data integrity after that period of debarment and did not ban him from serving as an NSF advisor, peer-reviewer, or consultant going forward.

If any of these scientists had tried to pull a stunt like that when applying for a grant from a private source, he'd be shown the door – permanently.  Frankly, there is no incentive in government to punish cheating, largely because of the cliquish nature of the scientific community that milks the government for research money.  Review panels are made up of scientists who may very well be applying for a grant themselves.  Today's cheater might be tomorrow's judge of who gets grant money.  This lack of desire to discipline cheaters is probably more common than one scientific agency.
Tens of billions of tax dollars are doled out every year in grants to study everything from climate change to nutrition to education – anything federal agencies fund.  There would be billions in savings to be had if adequate oversight were exercised.  Unfortunately, "business as usual" is a government catchphrase and difficult to fight.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/02/report_government_agency_refuses_to_discipline_scientists_caught_cooking_the_books.html