Eligibility challenge returns to haunt Florida

WND/ Bob Unruh

cowboybyte.com

A lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s presence on the 2012 presidential election ballot because of questions over his constitutional eligibility that was thrown out by a judge who earlier determined it wasn’t timely has returned to haunt election officials in the state with a request that the Obama victory results be quashed.

“Defendant Barack Hussein Obama is a direct threat to the safety and security of the United States, and its Constitution, which plaintiff must protect and defend by oath,” according to the complaint, which was delivered to Secretary of State Ken Detzner today.

The case earlier this year was dismissed by Circuit Judge Terry Lewis, who said Obama’s eligibility could not be challenged at that time because under Florida election law, technically, Obama hadn’t been nominated to the position.

As WND reported, Michael Voeltz, who identifies himself as “a registered member of the Democratic Party, voter and taxpayer in Broward County,” had challenged Obama’s eligibility, arguing that the “natural born citizen” clause was rightly understood in historical context to mean a child not only born in the U.S., but born to two American-citizen parents, so as not to have divided loyalties. Obama, however, readily admits to being born a dual citizen because of his father’s British citizenship.

In his decision then, Lewis noted that the United States Supreme Court has concluded that “every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States.”

However, attorney Larry Klayman, who is representing Voeltz, said, “The judge equated being a ‘citizen’ with a ‘natural born citizen’ and cited no authority to conclude the two terms are the same. He quotes other state’s cases, where judges reached that conclusion, but that’s not precedent for him. What other courts said in lower cases means nothing to him.”

Klayman also had been concerned that the judge determined the burden of proof that Obama is ineligible fell on Voeltz – but then refused to authorize discovery in the case which could have confirmed that eligibility status.

“How can you say we have the burden of proof, then not allow discovery?” Klayman asked. “He says we have burden, but doesn’t allow us to meet it.”

And he said Voeltz has standing to bring the case, under Florida law. More >>

Pravda: Illiterate society reelected Obama

Birther Report: Excerpts Via Gina Miller @ Renew America

Throughout most of the twentieth century, the Pravda newspaper was roughly the Russian equivalent of our leftist, state-controlled "mainstream" media, publishing only regime-approved, Communist party line content. Since undergoing a change in ownership in the early 1990s, it now offers warnings against the communism that infected the former Soviet Union and caused the deaths of millions of Russian citizens.

Despite the warnings of history and those who have lived under its iron fist, communism has come to America, and the useful idiots who dumbly adore the Communist-in-Chief, Barack Obama (or whatever his name is), are gladly and stupidly drinking the kool-aid of ignorance in embracing that deadly and dead-end ideology. Even the Russians can see this!

I read with sad amazement a couple of columns in the new, non-communist Pravda online by Xavier Lerma. One is titled, "Obama's Soviet Mistake," and the other, "The Reason Obama is President." Mr. Lerma clearly understands the terrible place of tyranny America has chosen, and he knows the reasons why. The reason Obama is President is the same reason I have repeatedly declared here in my columns: America has turned away from God and to self-worship and fleeting, carnal pleasures.

In "The Reason Obama is President," Mr. Lerma writes, [...]

[...] Despite the election result numbers, I do not believe the ignorant people yet outnumber the informed in America, although most of the informed are of the older generations. The Left has election and voter fraud down to a science, and it may well be that conservatism will not be allowed to win major elections anymore. The reports of election fraud since November 6th are sickening, but it appears the Republicans are content to lie down and take it, while they go off on misguided, introspective tangents about what they should have done differently to get the women and minority votes. It is stupidity in motion. If the election numbers are fraudulent, then speculation on "why" we "lost" is dumb, because without the election fraud tacked on, it is likely that we didn't lose!

Regardless, it remains that we are now saddled with the Communist federal government we deserve. Those of us who know better have allowed our liberty to lapse under decades of incremental thefts of our freedoms by an ever-growing monster bureaucracy in Washington. We have ceded our freedom to our Republican and Democrat masters in DC. Can we ever get it back? Not without a return to God's principles found in the Bible. And, looking around at the younger members of our degenerate, ignorant society, I am not holding my breath that they will suddenly turn to the Lord, although a few of them will, as God has called and chosen them.

Nevertheless, we will continue to pray for our nation and fight to rid our government of the evil criminals — both Democrat and Republican — who have commandeered it.

CONTINUED HERE: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/miller/121127 >>

Cuban-American Vote Explains Everything

Townhall.com/ Dennis Prager 

go.bloomberg.com

If you want to understand why President Obama was re-elected despite a largely unsuccessful presidency and almost unprecedentedly high and continuous unemployment, just look at the Cuban-American vote.

In fact, if you want to understand America today -- specifically, why it is in decline -- just look at the Cuban-American vote.

As reported in the Wall Street Journal, "The president captured 48 percent of the Cuban-American vote in Florida -- a record high for a Democrat."

Democratic presidential nominees went from 25 percent of the Cuban-American vote in 2000, to 29 percent in 2004, to 35 percent in 2008 to 48 percent on 2012.

We obviously have a dramatic trend here.

Now, why would that be?

There are two reasons: No experience of evil and American education.

The first generation of Cuban-Americans had escaped Communist evil. People who know evil are generally conservative. Leftism and liberalism -- no longer distinguishable -- are rooted in large measure in naivete and wishful thinking. The beliefs that people are basically good, and that evil regimes can almost always be negotiated with are two such examples.

Also, when you escape a Communist regime, you treasure liberty and you understand that as government and state expand, liberty must contract.

That is why Jews from the Soviet Union are the only non-Orthodox Jews who vote in the majority for Republicans. They, too, know evil, and they recognize the destructive appeal of a big, take-care-of-you, state.

The other reason for the dramatic shift in the Cuban-American vote is American education.

Most American elementary schools and high schools, and nearly all colleges and universities, teach everything that is significant from a liberal/left perspective. Multiculturalism has replaced E Pluribus Unum; the American past is villainous; the country is racist; morality is relative; and the left-wing cause of the day -- now global warming -- is taught as incontrovertible truth (ask your children if they have been shown Al Gore's global warming video, "An Inconvenient Truth," or if they have been taught both sides of the man-made-global-warming-leading-to-catastrophe hypothesis).

American schools, especially universities, are left-wing seminaries. The only difference between your local college and a Christian seminary is that the latter are more honest. The Christian seminary announces its goal -- to graduate committed Christians. The universities deceive when they say they have no agenda other than to open minds. They may believe this deception but it is one nevertheless. Almost no university ever has a conservative speaker at its commencement exercises; nearly every professor in liberal arts departments is a Democrat (and a left-wing Democrat at that), and on the few occasions that conservatives do receive an invitation to speak at a college, they are likely to be continuously heckled, may well need body guards, or their invitation is rescinded, as Fordham University did to Ann Coulter last week.

Members of the second Cuban-American generation have been far more influenced by their schools and by television shows than by their parents. And the same holds true for second and third and fourth and fifth generation Americans of every background.

A long time ago schools taught American history, not Politically Correct American history, as mandated, for example, by California law -- which forbids the use of any textbooks that do not emphasize the roles of women, blacks, Hispanics, gays, lesbians, bisexuals and the transgendered.

And a long time ago most Americans knew what America stood for and taught it to the next generation. In other words, even conservatives have largely forgotten either the distinctive American values system or how to communicate it. Meanwhile, the left has been utterly clear about what leftism stands for and has used schools, the news media and the entertainment media to transmit its values.

As a result, the American trinity of Liberty, In God We Trust, and E Pluribus Unum have been supplanted with egalitarianism, secularism, and multiculturalism -- Europe's trinity.

And that is why the children of Cuban-Americans, like the children of virtually every other group in America, including white Anglo-Saxon Protestant children, increasingly vote left.

Either conservatives -- from presidential candidates to the rest of us -- learn what we stand for and communicate it, or the greatest experiment in making a good society will come to its end.

Is Obama confessing election fraud?

WND/ Bob Unruh
A forensic profiler whose previous cases have included the Natalie Holloway disappearance and the O.J. Simpson double murder says Barack Obama is confessing to stealing the 2012 president election.

“Obama appears to unconsciously confess on multiple occasions that in his secret fury he stole the 2012 presidential election – continuing his attacks on our nation,” Andrew G. Hodges, M.D., told WND in an assessment of Obama.

“But really that is no different whatsoever than in 2008 becoming an illegal president who violated the Constitution. This knowledge comes from one undeniable fact: we have discovered a new unconscious mind that continually quick-reads situations and communicates about it – as Obama reveals.”

Hodges, who wrote “The Obama Confession: Secret Fear, Secret Fury,” previously deciphered the JonBenet Ramsey ransom note from the Boulder, Colo., murder case.

He uses a unique psycholinguistic technique he calls “ThoughtPrint Decoding” to “read between the lines” of people’s statements – called “the cutting-edge of forensic science” by expert investigators. He’s not exactly new to the field, already having identified killers by studying ransom notes, emails, letters and police interviews to spot secret confessions. He decoded O.J.’s “suicide note” to confirm Simpson had committed a double murder. He deciphered the JonBenet ransom note from Boulder, Colo., to identify the child’s killer. He decrypted letters from BTK to predict that he was about to kill again – the only profiler to do so. He studied statements by Joran van der Sloot and Deepak Kalpoe to tie them to the slaying of Holloway. He showed how Casey Anthony secretly confessed to killing her daughter in 200 letters written to a jail mate. He even decoded Bill Clinton’s Lewinsky comments.

See all the details in Hodges’ book “The Obama Confession.”

In a new analysis for WND, Hodges explains that Obama not only confesses, but he suggests a solution for Americans.

“Obama’s deeper moral compass continues to provide guidance to America on how to combat his assaults. In his U.N. speech he repeatedly referred to courageous protesters. ‘They should give us hope… remind us that so long as we work for it justice will be done; that history is on our side; and that a rising tide of liberty will never be reversed.’ Repeatedly, he tells us ‘protest,’ ‘march for justice’ and we can become a rising tide. Citizens still have the power,” Hodges said.

That there are questions about the 2012 election has been reported numerous times by WND.

In Hodges’ assessment: “Following Obama’s presidential reelection impressive findings have emerged pointing to a fraudulent election. A brief summary reveals precincts in Ohio and Pennsylvania reported greater than 100 percent of registered voters turned out to vote. In 100 precincts in Ohio Obama got 99 percent of the votes. Pennsylvania illegally removed GOP poll inspectors from voting locations. Computer irregularities in Pennsylvania (and elsewhere) reverted to a default Obama vote no matter who the voter selected.”

He continued, “Florida prevented absentee ballots from being observed by neutral observers. Military ballots were systematically denied active-duty servicemen and women around the world.”

So he said all he had to do was sit back and wait for the confession.

“One thing is for certain – if Obama stole this election he would confess unconsciously. We now review that possibility from his own mind, listening for his all-seeing unconscious super intelligence to once more tell us how he truly sees himself deep down. As I described in my book, ‘The Obama Confession: Secret Fear, Secret Fury,’ Obama has repeatedly confessed to his misdeeds of his illegal presidency and sweeping attack on America for four years.”

He explains his observations:

“On election night after initial voting reports declared him the winner, Obama once more unconsciously pointed to a confession. Before his anxious and relieved supporters, Obama spoke of his pride in his daughters but commented, ‘But I will say this for now, one dog’s probably enough’ – on the surface referring back to promising his daughters a puppy after his 2008 victory,” Hodges said.

“But stay with his spontaneous right-brain image. Understand he could have chosen any matter on which to comment and any description but his brilliant unconscious mind which always speaks in a symbolic right-brain language – and carefully chooses its images – selected ‘one dog is enough.’

“Read his confession that America has just elected a dog of a president – and once was enough,” Hodges said.

“He suggests that he’s dogging it as president, faking it as an illegal president in a second way now with a stolen election. That he’s a real ‘dog’ for such deception. The image of a dog further suggests: a pet favored by the media and blind supporters who would not dare to explore his illegality by birth or unfair election; that he will dog or haunt America for another four years because a dog also bites especially a wounded one. (And Obama is deeply wounded beyond belief.) Once again Obama unconsciously points to his deceptive anger and indeed he has bitten/assaulted America in multiple ways, both covert and overt, and plans on more of the same.”

It was interesting, Hodges noted, that Time magazine also then referred to the “dog” image, using it extensively to declare, “It was a fitting end to a one-dog’s-enough sort of campaign.”

“The magazine writer suggests that he had picked up deep down on Obama’s unconscious confession,” Hodges said.

Further, during a Nov. 9 press conference, “Obama snapped at two senators who had criticized U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice for her erroneous declarations regarding the Benghazi attack. He challenged the senators to ‘come after me,’ not Rice,” Hodges said.

“This matches his hidden instructions in the U.N. speech that American citizens be prepared to protest unfair elections. In both his 2008 Fathers’ Day speech as a candidate and in his inaugural address he unconsciously instructed citizens to confront him as an illegal foreign-born candidate/ president,” Hodges said.

“Obama’s ideas continually reflect a preoccupation with unconscious guilt and a need to be caught and stopped. His behavior and decision-making around the Benghazi tragedy with obvious cover-up suggest more guilt – a need to be questioned, a secret confession of being a weak leader and a president who puts a U.S. ambassador’s life at risk,” said Hodges.

He said the newest messages shine new light on Obama’s July 13, 2012, statement that, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

“The symbolic unconscious message (with a deeper context of a potential vote scam) is not difficult to discern: ‘If I stay in business as president, it won’t be because of me. I’m not really the one who will bring about my reelection – others are going to make sure it happens,’” Hodges said. “His headline-grabbing comment has all the earmarks that he was warning America – attempting to shock everyone into grasping – that a secret plan was taking shape to guarantee his reelection.”

Hodges also cited Obama’s Sept. 25 address to the U.N., saying Obama was “confessing to his illegal presidency and an unfair election in 2008. In retrospect – now that evidence points to the real possibility of a fraudulent election – Obama suggests his brilliant always truthful super-intel was also looking ahead and confessing that plans were underway to steal the election.”

On Hodges’ website, Steven A. Egger, associate professor of criminology at the University of Houston, Clear Lake, has written that Hodges’ technique is “becoming the cutting edge of forensic science.”

“Dr. Hodges’ investigation of forensic documents in the Natalee Holloway case indicates that his ‘thoughtprint decoding method’ and ‘reading between the lines’ is, in fact, becoming a major contribution to law enforcement tools used by criminal investigators,” wrote Egger.

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

WND’s newest forum is your opportunity to report voter fraud

Stand up to fight against voter fraud right now!

Here’s the blueprint Obama used to steal the 2012 election.

Leaked: Audio of Mitt Romney Explaining to Donors Why He Lost Election — And Guess What Bill Clinton Told Him

The Blaze/ Jason Howerton 

Just like his infamous “47 percent” remarks, former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has been under fire for telling his top donors on Wednesday that President Barack Obama won the election because of his “gifts” to minorities, women and young people.

On Thursday, ABC received leaked audio of Romney’s comments. In addition to talking about Obama’s “gifts,” Romney also told donors that former President Bill Clinton called him and told him he thought he was going to win before Hurricane Sandy hit and gave Obama a boost.

Business Insider provides transcripts for the clips:

“It’s a proven political strategy, which is give a bunch of money to a group and, guess what, they’ll vote for you. What I would do if I were a Democrat running four years from now — I’d say dental care ought to be included in Obamacare.”

  Watch More News Videos at ABC
  |
  2012 Presidential Election
  |
  Entertainment & Celebrity News

“What the president did is he gave them two things. One, he gave them a big gift on immigration with the DREAM Act amnesty program, which was obviously very very popular with Hispanic voters, and then number two was Obamacare … For a home earning — let’s say $30,000 a year — free health care, which is worth about $10,000 a year, I mean it’s massive, it’s huge. So this — he did two very popular things for the Hispanic community.”

  Watch More News Videos at ABC
  |
  2012 Presidential Election
  |
  Entertainment & Celebrity News

“I spoke with President Clinton the day before yesterday. He called and spent 30 minutes chatting with me. He said, ‘A week out, I thought you were going to win.’ And he said, ‘But the hurricane happened, and it gave the president a chance to be presidential, and to look bipartisan. And you know, he got a little more momentum.’ And of course he also said that when he was watching Ann speak at the Republican convention, he decided he was tempted to join the Republican Party. So he may have just been effusive with generous comments as he chatted. He was very complimentary, by the way, of how well we did with middle-class voters, and he said they were surprised by how strong we were in Ohio and in other states with middle-class voters, they did exceptionally well with minorities, but white, middle-class voters, we really cleaned up with and that caught them by surprise.”

  Watch More News Videos at ABC
  |
  2012 Presidential Election
  |
  Entertainment & Celebrity News

Townhall's Rachel Alexander: Obama Likely Won Re-Election Through Election Fraud

- Image Credit: Obama Voter Fraud -

Obama Likely Won Re-Election Through Election Fraud

Excerpt Via Rachel Alexander @ Townhall

According to the Columbus Dispatch, one out of every five registered voters in Ohio is ineligible to vote. In at least two counties in Ohio, the number of registered voters exceeded the number of eligible adults who are of voting age. In northwestern Ohio's Wood County, there are 109 registered voters for every 100 people eligible to vote. An additional 31 of Ohio's 88 counties have voter registration rates over 90%, which most voting experts regard as suspicious. Obama miraculously won 100% of the vote in 21 districts in Cleveland, and received over 99% of the vote where GOP inspectors were illegally removed.

The inflated numbers can't just reflect voters who have moved, because the average voting registration level nationwide is only 70%. The vast majority of voters over the 70% level are not voting because they want to, they are voting because someone is getting them to cast a vote, one way or another. Those 31 counties are most likely the largest counties in Ohio, representing a majority of Ohio voters. This means the number of votes cast above the 70% typical voter registration level easily tops 100,000, the margin Obama won Ohio by.

CONTINUED HERE: http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2012/11

In 59 Philly Wards, Romney Did Not Get Single Vote

By Miriam Hill, Andrew Seidman, and John Duchneskie, Inquirer Staff Writers

It's one thing for a Democratic presidential candidate to dominate a Democratic city like Philadelphia, but check out this head-spinning figure: In 59 voting divisions in the city, Mitt Romney received not one vote. Zero. Zilch.

These are the kind of numbers that send Republicans into paroxysms of voter-fraud angst, but such results may not be so startling after all.

"We have always had these dense urban corridors that are extremely Democratic," said Jonathan Rodden, a political science professor at Stanford University. "It's kind of an urban fact, and you are looking at the extreme end of it in Philadelphia."

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/2012-election/2012/11/12/59-philly-wards-romney-did-not-get-single-vote?cmpid=NL_FiredUpFoxNation#ixzz2CE4eKDia

Citizens In Over 40 States File Petitions For Secession from U.S.

States highlighted in red mark where petitions for secession from the U.S. have been filed/ GossipOnThis.com

Following last week’s re-election of President Barack Obama, residents in more than forty U.S. states have filed petitions to secede from the country via the government’s “We the People” program on the White House’s official website.

The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

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

Tim Brown

As I reported over the weekend, Texas and Louisiana citizens began petitions to the White House to peacefully withdraw from the United States and then yesterday that number had grown to nearly forty states. As this happened, the Texas petition topped it’s goal of 20,000 signatures.

As of the writing of this article, the Texas petition has 70,278 signatures, nearly three times the amount required to be reviewed by the White House.
According to the White House petition site, once the petition reaches 25,000 signatures within 30 days “White House staff will review it, ensure it’s sent to the appropriate policy experts, and issue an official response.”
Below is a video that explains how the process is supposed to work:

I admit, I am wary of petitioning the federal government over any of this. However, I think the number of petitions and the people signing is only an indication that the “union” is no longer united. This, along with the recent election, demonstrate that we are a nation divided.

It was at another period in our history where states sought to peacefully withdraw from the Union, only to be invaded by that very Union. With stakes as high as they are now, I am not very optimistic that the current state of things in America will lead to a peaceful agreement between the federal government and the states.

Let me be clear, these petitions are not put forth by the states officially, but they are put forth by residents of those states. After all, the people are the ones who select their representatives and if the people voice their disapproval of what is taking place at the federal level enough in their own state, this may gain traction. I suggest not only signing the petition for your state, but letting your state legislature know and possibly garnering signatures to provide your state legislature and governor with.

Texas Governor Rick Perry says he will not give credibility to the online movement. His spokesperson Catherine Frazier said that while Perry “shares the frustrations many Americans have with our federal government,” the governor “believes in the greatness of our Union and nothing should be done to change it.”

I’m guessing the governor has not heard directly from the 70,000 plus people who have signed the petition. Perhaps phone calls and such might just let him know how serious the people of his state actually are.

I leave you with the words of the Founders in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Clearly they believed in the right of peaceful secession of the states from the Union.

UPDATE: Louisiana has also met their goal.

UPDATE 2: Two petitions have been filed at the White House Petitions site against those petitioning for withdraw. “Deport Everyone That Signed A Petition To Withdraw Their State From The United States Of America” and “Strip the Citizenship from Everyone who Signed a Petition to Secede and Exile Them.”

Sorry to say, there may be a Union, but there is definitely not unity.

UPDATE: Florida has also met their petition goal.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/11/texas-secession-petition-tops-goal-requires-review-by-white-house/#ixzz2CBHv4zWL

Did Obama really win?

WND/ Joseph Farah

The question must be asked. I wish I didn’t have to be the one to ask it. But, since no one else will, it falls to me.

Did Barack Obama actually, legitimately, fairly and legally win the election?

My answer is an unequivocal no.

It was not a free and fair election. In fact, if we as a nation don’t acknowledge the reality of what I am saying, we may never have a free and fair election again in the future of this once-great nation.

Here are some facts to consider:

• The Obama campaign accepted at least some foreign campaign cash – willingly and knowingly. The campaign website could have prohibited it. It did not. In other words, it deliberately left open the door for illegal foreign contributions in its “by any means necessary” quest for re-election. WND has proven that by actually contributing under the name Osama bin Laden from a Pakistani IP address, with a phony physical address and other neon-lit red flags in hopes of catching attention. Obama accepted illegal foreign contributions in 2008 without penalty, so why would anyone expect him not to repeat his crime in 2012? No one can know the extent of the fraud, because Obama has refused to release the identity of donors of $200 or less – yet he boasts that most of the money he collected was in small amounts.
• James O’Keefe and Project Veritas spent months heroically proving the absolute willingness and eagerness of Democratic operatives to commit voter fraud – especially by having people cast multiple votes.
• Military ballots were systematically denied active-duty servicemen and women around the world. This would be a scandal if it happened once. But it has become the norm when Democrats are in charge of the Defense Department. It would be a scandal if it were due to incompetence. But it appears to be a deliberate effort to suppress the military vote. It would be a scandal if it were not a close election. But it was.
• Prior to the election, Democrats fought for open voting requiring no identification – particularly photo ID. Coincidentally, Obama won every state that didn’t fully require photo ID to vote. Democrats contended that voter ID laws suppress the vote. But they do not. They only suppress the illegal vote.
• Across Philadelphia, GOP poll inspectors were forcibly (and illegally) removed from polling locations. Coincidentally (or not), Obama received “astronomical” numbers in those very same regions, including locations where he received “over 99 percent” of the vote. Ward 4, which also had a poll watcher dressed in Obama attire, went massively for Obama. Obama received 99.5 percent of the vote, defeating Romney 9,955 to 55.
• Obama also won 99.8 percent of the vote in 44 Cleveland districts. In another Ohio county, Obama won with 108 percent of the voters registered.
• Obama received 10 million fewer votes than he did in 2008. Romney received 3 million fewer votes than McCain. Obama won in the four critical swing states by a grand total of 500,000 votes.
• Some 5 million independents changed their votes from Obama to Romney in 2012. So Romney started the day 2.5 million votes ahead of where McCain was in 2008, as Jack Wheeler points out. This means that 5.5 million Republican voters are not accounted for. Either they didn’t show up at the polls or their votes were not counted. Does anyone believe there was less enthusiasm by Republicans about this election than for the one in 2008?

I could go on and on, but you get the point. In such a close election, these anomalies are unacceptable. In an election in which all the voter fraud appears to be perpetrated by one side, it could more than make the difference in the race. Worse yet, will an unscrupulous party that would resort to such crimes to win ever permit another free and fair election in the future – especially if the crimes are not exposed and punished severely?

I believe going into the election that at least 5 percent of the Democratic vote would be fraudulent. That would mean Republicans would have to out-perform Democrats by 6 percent to win. I suspect now I was too conservative in my projections of about the expected level of criminality perpetrated by Obama’s Democrats.

Remember from where Obama arose. He was a community organizer and attorney for ACORN, which is nothing but an organized crime front with a focus on throwing elections.

Do I think Obama won fair and square? No. I think he won only because of systematic fraud, corruption and abuse in the 2012 election.

Very likely, it would not have even been a close election had Obama not made cheating – in every conceivable way – the central component of his campaign effort.

Is there anything we can do about it now?

Not likely.

But if we want to ensure that America has free and fair elections in the future, we better get to work. America’s political system is becoming a thugocracy.

I’m fighting back.

And you can help me in this fight.

I’m challenging the Obama campaign on the acceptance of those illegal donations. I’ve filed a Federal Elections Commission complaint at considerable cost. I have no illusions that it will be easy to challenge a sitting president within his own bureaucracy. But I’m doing it. Meanwhile, some in the press would prefer that I be charged with voter fraud for efforts to expose the system. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if the Democratic machine tries something like that.

That’s why we need your help.

We’re fighting to preserve America’s freedom here – nothing less.

We’re fighting to preserve the concept of representative government – elections that actually mean something.

We’re fighting to expose what no other news agency in the world apparently has an interest in exposing – the dark underbelly of corruption, fraud and abuse in our political system.

Can you help?

Voting Machine Backdoor Guarantees Puppet of Choice Victory

TheAlexJonesChannel Alex welcomes back Bev Harris of Black Box Voting who breaks down cases of vote fraud during the 2012 election.

Why Obama Won

Supporters of President Obama watch results at an election night viewing party in Chicago. Exit poll data showed that he won by drawing on a growing base of minority voters. (Scott Strazzante, Chicago Tribune / November 8, 2012)

American Thinker

Gary Aminoff 

On election night, as the camera panned the audience waiting to hear Barack Obama give his victory speech, what struck me was that the audience was primarily young people and minorities.  My thought was, "These are the very people who will suffer the most under a second Obama administration.  Don't they know they are voting against their own best interest?"

And then I thought about it and came to the conclusion: "No.  They don't."  They don't because they are, by and large, uneducated.  Oh, some of them may have college degrees or even graduate degrees, but they are still substantially uneducated.  I would bet that very few of them know the difference between Keynesian economics and Austrian School economics.  I am sure that most of them have never heard of the Laffer Curve.  I would guess that most of them aren't familiar with the first principles behind the origin of our country.  I doubt that many of them know what evil lies in Socialism or Communism, or unbridled leftism.  Or are even aware that Barack Obama is a man of the left, and what that means.  They, for the most part, have no idea what the concept of individual liberty is, nor how a big, powerful central government reduces that liberty.  I also am pretty sure that they feel that Barack Obama is someone who cares about the poor, women, minorities, and the "middle class," and that Republicans don't.  I would stake my substance on the fact that they don't know what is meant by a limited government, or what the Tenth Amendment says.  I am certain that most of them don't know anything about Benghazi.  Substantially uneducated!

How is it that we have raised one or two generations of uneducated Americans?  The answer, my friend, is not blowing in the wind.  The answer lies in the curricula of our schools.

For the past several months, in my capacity in the Republican Party, I have been speaking at middle schools and high schools around Los Angeles.  It has been very enlightening.
I love engaging with children.  Most of them are very bright and ask brilliant questions.  The questions give me insights into what they are most concerned about.  It also makes clear what they are taught -- by either their parents or their teachers, or both.

To summarize -- children, for the most part, believe the following:

a) Republicans care about only the rich -- the top 1% -- and don't care about anyone else.

b) Republicans hate people of color and especially Latinos.

c) Republicans hate gays.

d) Republicans are racist.

e) It is the government that provides jobs.  (I have asked that question many times in classrooms or assemblies.  "Who is it that creates jobs in America?"  The answer is invariably, without hesitation, "the government.")

f) Corporations are bad, and profits are very bad.  Business shouldn't make profits; they should give any excess money they make to their employees.

g) Taxes are good; they provide the money for the government to take care of people.

h) Government should expand and take care of everyone in the country.

i) America, rather than being a force for good in the world, has been a force for evil.

j) Government has an unlimited source of funds.  (When I ask, "Where is the government going to get the money to do all these things you want it to do?," the answer is "taxes.")

These children will soon be voters.  How is it, in America, that we are raising children to believe that bigger government is better, that government is the engine that provides jobs, that profits are bad, that Republicans care about only the rich, that we are racist, and that we hate minorities and gays.

This is not something to be ignored.  Our country is being changed forever by children who have had this type of indoctrination.  We must figure out how to stop it.  We need to create a love of country in our children as we once did.  We need to have our children say the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag every morning, as we once did.  We need to teach our children that America has been a force for good in the world.  We need to teach them that it is not the role of government to "take care" of people.  We need to teach civics once again, and the Constitution.

Until this problem is dealt with, and it needs to be soon, we will be raising generations of children who believe in an ever-larger government and who will permanently change America into Greece.  There will be no Republican Party or conservative candidates who will win elections as more and more of the population is indoctrinated with leftist thinking.  Goodbye to the Home of the Brave and the Land of the Free if we don't act on this issue.

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

Gary Aminoff is the vice chairman of the Republican Party of Los Angeles County.  He can be reached at gaminoff@gmail.com.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/why_obama_won.html#ixzz2BjtNWsWO

Obama did not win a single state that fully requires photo IDs to vote

WND/ Aaron Klein

el-hispano.com

Did the suppression or lack of voter ID laws aid President Obama’s victory over Mitt Romney?

Obama did not win a single state that fully requires photo IDs to vote, although he was victorious in four states that accept non-photo identification – Washington, Colorado, Ohio and Virginia. Those states accept as legitimate identification current utility bills, bank statements and paychecks.

Obama won New Hampshire, which just enacted a new Voter ID law that eventually will require photo identification. That law is not being fully implemented until September 2013.

In Tuesday’s election, New Hampshire voters who did not have photo identification were still allowed to vote after executing what the state calls a challenged voter affidavit, meaning the voter fills out a form and receives a letter requesting confirmation of voting. If there is no response within a month, the state may investigate to determine if vote fraud occurred.

Obama also won in Michigan. By law, every Michigan voter must either present picture identification at the polls or sign an affidavit attesting that he or she is not in possession of picture identification.

In other words, in both New Hampshire and Michigan, voters do not need to present photo identification to cast a ballot.

Obama won several closely contested states that do not require any voter identification, including Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Wisconsin and Nevada.

The states that Obama lost that do require photo identification do not traditionally vote Republican. Tennessee, for example, voted Democrat in the 1972, 1992 and 1996 presidential elections. Georgia, which also requires photo ID, voted Democrat in the 1976, 1980 and 1992 presidential elections.

What will Barack Obama do now that he has another four years in office? Find out in Aaron Klein’s “Fool Me Twice,” on sale now at WND’s Superstore

In Colorado, where non-photo identification is accepted, a review by RedState.com showed irregular voting patterns, finding that 10 counties had a total registration ranging between 104 to 140 percent of the respective populations.

When Media Trackers requested comment on the voter bloat in one area, Gilpin County, the county’s chief deputy Gail Maxwell explained, “This is just a reminder Gilpin is a Gaming Community. The voters come and go!”

RedState notes records show some of the counties in question maintained statistically unusual voting figures. Gilpin County had a 61 percent voter turnout in the 2010 election, and Hinsdale County had an astounding 92 percent voter turnout. Those figures are far above the Colorado average turnout of 48 percent and the national average of 41 percent.

In Pennsylvania, where Obama was victorious, an Oct. 2 ruling by a Pennsylvania judge put a voter ID law on hold, decreeing that election officials can still ask voters for photo identification but cannot require it.

Voter ID laws were entirely struck down in Texas and South Carolina. Romney carried both states.

WND previously reported a radical group that has a history of biased research provided data utilized in both cases that blocked the new voter ID laws.

The Brennan Center for Justice, heavily funded by billionaire activist George Soros, has been at the center of providing data claiming voter ID laws will disenfranchise minorities. Read more on WND.com >>.

Obama’s demographic edge

Gerber baby: Mary Jane Montoya

By NBC's Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Brooke Browerbama’s demographic

*** Obama's demographic edge: Yes, the auto bailout mattered in Ohio. Sure, Hurricane Sandy helped the president. And, yes, the economy was the No. 1 issue. But make no mistake: What happened last night was a demographic time bomb that had been ticking and that blew up in GOP faces. As the Obama campaign had assumed more than a year ago, the white portion of the electorate dropped to 72%, and the president won just 39% of that vote. But he carried a whopping 93% of black voters (representing 13% of the electorate), 71% of Latinos (representing 10%), and also 73% of Asians (3%). What’s more, despite all the predictions that youth turnout would be down, voters 18-29 made up 19% of last night’s voting population -- up from 18% four years ago -- and President Obama took 60% from that group. The trend also played out in the key battleground states: The president won about 70% of the Latino vote in Colorado and Nevada, and he won 60% of it in Florida (a high number given the state’s large GOP-leaning Cuban-American population). On Monday, we wrote that demography could determine destiny. And that’s exactly what happened. While the campaign’s turnout operation deserves all the credit for getting these voters to the polls, the most significant event of this presidential contest might very well have been the 2010 census.

*** And the GOP’s demographic dilemma: Obama’s demographic edge creates this dilemma for the Republican Party: It can no longer rely on white voters to win national elections anymore, especially in presidential cycles. Indeed, according to the exit poll, 89% of all votes Mitt Romney won last night came from whites (compared with 56% for Obama). So the Republicans are maximizing their share with white voters; they just aren’t getting the rest. And come 2016, the white portion of the electorate will probably drop another couple of points to 70%. Politico’s Martin puts it this way: “Battling a wheezing economy and a deeply motivated opposition, Obama still managed to retain much of his 2008 map because of the GOP’s deficiencies with the voters who are changing the political face of once conservative-leaning Virginia, Florida, Colorado and Nevada. Republicans face a crisis: the country is growing less white and their coalition has become more white in recent years. In 2004, George W. Bush won [about 40 percent] of Hispanics. Four years later, John McCain, the author of an immigration reform bill, took 31 percent of Hispanics. And this year, Romney captured only 27 percent of Hispanics.”

NBC's Chuck Todd discusses how Florida may be used as a model for the rest of the country to show how changes in demographics, particularly an influx of Hispanic voters in key counties, affected the outcome of the election.  

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

*** Hard for the GOP just to turn to the Midwest: Now Republicans might argue, “Look, we can win back the Midwest -- Ohio, Iowa, and Wisconsin.” Yet those account for 34 electoral votes. But the Sun Belt states where Obama campaigned and which have more diverse populations (Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia) have a total of 57 electoral votes. And then there are Arizona, Georgia, and Texas. Do those states come into play in 2016? What about 2020? Come 2016, you could argue that Arizona and Georgia become for Democrats what Michigan, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania are for Republicans -- just slightly out of reach.

*** Last night’s results: The morning after, here are the results (so far) from last night: Obama holds 303 electoral votes and Romney 206. (NBC News has yet to call Florida and its 29 electoral votes, but Obama leads there 50%-49%.) In the popular vote, it’s Obama 50%, Romney 48%. Also, Democrats have held on to their Senate majority and might add to it -- with undecided races in Montana (where Democratic incumbent Jon Tester leads 48%-48% with 77% in) and North Dakota (where Democrat Heidi Heitkamp is ahead by about 3,000 voters with 93% in). But Republicans held on to control of the House, holding 237 seats vs. 197 for the Democrats, plus-minus four seats.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

*** Does status-quo control = status-quo governing? So in the end, we got a status-quo result -- with Obama holding on to the White House, Democrats keeping control of the Senate, and Republicans maintaining their grip on the House. But here’s the question with the “fiscal cliff” negotiations coming up: Will the governing be status quo, too? Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell released this statement last night: “To the extent [Obama] wants to move to the political center, which is where the work gets done in a divided government, we’ll be there to meet him half way. That begins by proposing a way for both parties to work together in avoiding the ‘fiscal cliff’ without harming a weak and fragile economy, and when that is behind us work with us to reform the tax code and our broken entitlement system.” And House Speaker John Boehner makes a statement on the “fiscal cliff” negotiations at 3:30 pm ET. But who holds the mandate here? The GOP? Or a president who waged a national campaign on raising taxes for the wealthy, and who won? And here’s another question: Do Boehner and McConnell take advantage of the lame duck to compromise? 

*** Obama’s swing-county swagger: Turning back to last night’s presidential contest, Obama beat Romney in almost all of the swing counties (won by Bush in ’04 but by Obama in ’08). Indeed, Obama won three of four swing counties in Florida (Hillsborough, Pinellas, Osceola), four of six in Ohio (Hamilton, Wood, Ottawa, Sandusky), 11 of 14 in Virginia (including Loudon, Prince William, and Henrico), and all six in Colorado (including Jefferson, Arapahoe, and Larimer). And despite losing North Carolina, Obama may have proved that the state is changing, becoming more “Mid-Atlantic” but not quite all there, as Charlie Cook has said. Obama won nine of 13 swing counties in the Tar Heel State (including the large counties of Wake, Forsyth, Cumberland, and Buncombe).

*** And his tactical dominance: But it was more than winning the swing counties for Obama; it was tactical dominance. Romney made inroads all across the country from previous GOP performance. What happened, however, was that the Obama campaign exploited the census and changed the margins. The best example of this was in Florida.

*** Making history: Finally, it was an historic-making election. With Obama’s re-election, we now have the first time since Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe that Americans have elected three two-term presidents in a row… Tammy Baldwin will become the Senate’s first openly gay member… The Senate will have at least 19 female members -- the most ever -- and there’s a chance that number could increase to 20 if Heitkamp wins… Maryland and Maine became the first states to approve of gay marriage at the ballot box… And initiatives to legalize marijuana passed in Colorado and Washington state.

Exit polls: Gender, race, economy were key. Voters back Obama despite economic concerns, exit polls show

NBC's Chuck Todd discusses how Florida may be used as a model for the rest of the country to show how changes in demographics, particular an influx of Hispanic voters in key counties, affected the outcome of the election.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

By Tom Curry

Updated at 12:26 a.m. ET: President Barack Obama won re-election despite an electorate that sees a nation on the wrong track, with a weak and troubling economy, according to NBC projections and exit polls. Exit poll interviews with voters point to three big reasons for Obama’s victory:

• First, despite a slim majority of voters thinking the country is on the wrong track, 54 percent approve of the way Obama is doing his job, and the electorate was almost exactly split on whether Obama or Romney would be better at handling the economy.
• Among the four voters in 10 who said they think economic conditions in the country are getting better, a huge majority, nearly nine out of ten, said they voted for Obama.
• Finally, a slight majority of voters voiced an unfavorable view of Romney personally, while a slight majority had a favorable view of Obama. On the attribute of whether the president or his GOP rival was “a candidate who cares about people like me” Obama had a massive lead over Romney.

Voters were sharply divided along lines of sex, ethnicity, age, income and religion, exit polls showed.

NBC's Tamron Hall breaks down the results of the NBC News national exit poll, which shows a gender gap that worked in President Obama's favor as well as a boost from the Latino community, from which he received more votes than four years ago. 

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The gender gap was distinct: Among male voters, 52 percent favored Romney, while 45 percent backed Obama. The data reflected slipping support for Obama, who won 49 percent of male voters four years ago. (Full exit polling data is available here.) 

Among white male voters the disparity was even sharper: Obama was winning just 36 percent of the white male vote Tuesday, compared with the 41 percent he won in 2008, the exit polls showed.

Women voters favored Obama 55 percent to 43 percent – about the same split as four years ago when 56 percent of women voters preferred Obama and 43 percent supported Republican candidate Sen. John McCain.

Within the female vote there was a sharp divide between married and unmarried women: Married women backed Romney, 53 percent to 46 percent, while unmarried women preferred Obama by a better than 2-to-1 ratio, 68 percent to 30 percent.

Among white voters -– who accounted for nearly three quarters of the electorate -- Romney was leading Obama by 58 to 40 percent, making Romney’s performance among white voters three points better than McCain’s in 2008.

Younger voters preferred Obama, but not by as lopsided a margin as in 2008: Among voters age 18 to 29 Tuesday, three out of five said they voted for Obama, compared with about two of three in 2008.

On the other hand, Romney had a substantial advantage among voters 65 and older, who favored the Republican by a margin of 11 points.

Latinos and blacks overwhelmingly voted for Obama, according to the exit polls. Latinos, an important part of Obama’s winning coalition in 2008, were even stronger in their support of Obama than they were four years ago. Latinos, who accounted for about a tenth of the national electorate, favored Obama by about 70-30. Black voters continued to be exceptionally loyal to Obama – he was getting more than nine in 10 of their votes Tuesday night, just as he did four years ago.

Obama showed strength among lower-income voters, winning three out of five voters with family incomes below $50,000. Among middle-income voters Romney led 52 percent to 46 percent, and he did a bit better than that among voters with family incomes of $100,000 over more.

Another dividing line in the electorate, as in 2008, was religion. Three out of five voters who told exit poll interviewers they attended religious services weekly or more often preferred Romney, while 40 percent backed Obama. This represented about a five point improvement among such voters for Romney over McCain’s performance four years ago.

Among those who said they never attend religious services (a much smaller portion of the electorate) Obama won more than three of five.

A slim majority of voters Tuesday told exit poll interviewers that they felt the country was “off on the wrong track,” but the mood of the electorate was markedly more optimistic than it was four years ago when a record three out of four voters said the country was on the wrong track.

An overwhelming 76 percent of voters said the state of the economy is poor, or “not so good,” but voters did not tend to blame Obama, who came into office in the midst of a financial crisis and deep recession. Only 38 percent said Obama was “more to blame for the current economic conditions,” compared with 53 percent who laid the blame more on former President George W. Bush.

Ten Flagrant Examples of Obama Lying During His Presidentcy

TheAlexJonesChannel During a campaign event in New Hampshire, Barack Obama told an audience of his supporters, "you know I tell the truth."