The Latest Evidence of Voter Fraud — and Discrimination

Obama-administration officials and their liberal camp-followers who routinely claim there is no reason to worry about election integrity because vote fraud is nonexistent suffered some embarrassing setbacks last week. 

Federal law requires states to clean up their voter rolls.  In 2009, the Obama Justice Department dismissed, with no explanation, a lawsuit filed by the Bush administration asking Missouri for such a clean-up. It has since taken no action against any other state or jurisdiction since it has an unofficial policy of not enforcing this requirement. But private parties are starting to force changes. 

In Mississippi last Wednesday, the American Civil Rights Union won a significant victory for election integrity when a federal judge approved a consent decree in which Walthall County agreed to finally clean up its bloated voter-registration list. The county has more registered voters than the Census says it has eligible voters. The ACRU sued the county (which went for Romney in 2012) under Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), which requires election officials to maintain accurate voter rolls through a regular program that removes ineligible voters.

Walthall County will have to remove felons, noncitizens, decedents, and voters who have moved away from its registration list.  As part of the consent decree, the county agreed to start checking its voter list against other state and federal records maintained by the Mississippi DMV, the state departments of vital records and corrections, the local court and local tax authority,  the Social Security Administration, and the Department of Homeland Security. The county must also notify local and federal law-enforcement officials when it finds individuals who registered or voted illegally, such as felons and noncitizens. The ACRU has a second suit still pending against Jefferson Davis County, Miss. (which went for Obama in 2012).

Via: National Review Online

Continue Reading....

Samantha Power and the Liberal Internationalists Meet the Real World

It was not long ago when United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power could do no wrong in the eyes of the internationalist left. Leaving aside the intolerable sin of having called Hillary Clinton a “monster” during the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries – a transgression for which she spent some months repenting — the lettered internationalist has finally secured her dream job: guiding American foreign affairs as President Barack Obama’s chief diplomat in the United Nations. But Power’s journey is a tragic one. Her story has become a parable, teaching a whole new generation to be careful what they wish for. 

Today, the internationalist scholar and famous champion for the supremacy of multilateral institutions is learning that the challenges of governing appear far less complex when filtered through the narrow windows adorning Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. Not long ago, Power championed humanitarian interventionism as a means of curtailing bloodshed and preventing genocides. She advocated for broad consensus building via international institutions and fretted that America’s unilateral actions in Iraq undermined the mission’s purpose. Today, opposed by the recalcitrant voices in Beijing and Moscow in the U.N., Power is pushing her own morally questionable and legally ambiguous war. In the process, she is learning about the intellectual limitations of “smart power.”

“How do you make American words mean something again?” Power once asked her students. “How do we prevent our stories from sounding like fairy tales?”

It was a good question. One in which her intellectual brethren were eager to answer. In 2009, with Obama’s ascension to high office, they got their chance.

The author of the 2002 book, A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide, long ago became a beacon of promise for the intellectual left incensed by President George W. Bush’s dismissal of the relevance of multilateral diplomatic institutions. Though not a dove, (as a champion of the “responsibility to protect” doctrine, Power was a leading voice in the White House convincing Obama to intervene in the nascent Libyan civil war in 2011), Power could have aptly been described as a globalist.

As a champion of intervention, Power appeared to welcome the 2003 invasion of Iraq. However, she was vexed by the lack of international authorization for that invasion and reconstruction which would be conducted by Bush’s nearly 50-nation strong “coalition of the willing.”

Via: Mediaite

Continue Reading....

Priorities: President's Dog Gets More Airtime than Move to Defund ObamaCare

According to the three networks, the serious effort by conservatives to defund ObamaCare isn't worth as much coverage as the addition of a new dog to the President's family. In just a 24-hour period, the ABC, CBS and NBC evening and morning shows devoted six minutes and 23 seconds to the debut of the puppy "Sunny." In contrast, those same shows have granted a scant two minutes and 26 seconds over a two-month period (July 9 through September 8) to the move by conservative senators such as Mike Lee and Ted Cruz to strip funding from the increasingly-unpopular ObamaCare.

The networks didn't bother to stack the deck with segments heavily opposed to the "Defund It" push, promoted by influential conservative organizations and some GOP lawmakers. Instead, they chose to deprive the campaign of nearly all publicity, omitting it from their normal political coverage. ABC was the worst offender, with the network offering a mere eight second reference to the defund effort.

However, on August 19 and 20, the hosts of World News and Good Morning America discussed the Obamas acquisition of Sunny the Portugese Water Dog for 174 seconds. This is a disparity of 20 to one – an accomplishment even more amazing considering that it was July 9 when Senator Lee first began pushing to defund ObamaCare.

The sole ABC mention of the conservative plan came on the August 18 Good Morning America. George Stephanopoulos told GMA Sunday host Bianna Golodryga: "...If [congressional Republicans] shut down the government, say, over their cause to de-fund Obamacare, they will relegate themselves to minority status for generations."

NBC allowed slightly more coverage, 52 seconds worth. On August 9, Chuck Todd simply repeated White House talking points. Recounting an Obama news conference, he hyped, "[The President] said this about Republicans threatening government shutdown: 'The idea that you would shut down the government unless you prevent thirty million people from getting health care is a bad idea.'"

The key players in the effort, people like Lee and Cruz, also didn't get much attention. Since July 9, CBS included one clip of Lee and one of Cruz. NBC allowed just one snippet of Cruz. ABC's morning and evening shows had

Via: Newsbusters

Continue Reading...

The Congressional Record of Unintended Consequences

With its sorry record, can Congress act prudently? 

Just because Congress may approve a military strike on Syria does not mean it is a wise public policy. A Congress with a 14% approval rating, based on an August Gallup poll, cannot be doing everything right. Look at its record — especially the unintended consequences of what it has authorized.

Congress has presided explicitly or implicitly over military decisions that have cost the country dearly in lives and capital for over a decade. And neither Congress nor the Administration have owned up to the unintended consequences. The toppling of Saddam Hussein meant removal of the last symbol of secular Arab nationalism, an offset to Islamist fundamentalism, and it emboldened Shiite Iran to eye alignment with the majority Shiite sect in Iraq and become more assertive against the West. Further, the dismissal of thousands of Iraqi Baathist Party members and security forces by the American authority in Baghdad meant pandemonium after the capital was secured. There were limited competent resources to run the finance, electricity, transport, and other ministries. No one bargained for the massive American operating support required — and where was Congressional oversight?

The invasion of Afghanistan also authorized by Congress resulted in an unintended U.S. presence of almost twelve years and still counting — long after Mullah Omar was sent into hiding. Moreover, the counterinsurgency model sold to the American people is yielding limited security benefits, with the specter of a resurgent al Qaeda and Afghan Taliban after the U.S. and NATO withdrawal in 2014 — when there will likely be some stability in a few population centers, with the interior still controlled by warring tribes hostile to the West. The competing and more limited counter-terrorism model, originally espoused by Vice President Joe Biden, will be the protocol after 2014 — it already is in Yemen, Somalia and other hot spots where insertion teams, precision strikes, drone attacks, and other “stand-off” methods are expected to do the job.

Via: American Spectator

Continue Reading.....

POLL: 71% OF AMERICANS OPPOSE SYRIA STRIKE

A new CNN poll finds that 71% of Americans oppose military action in Syria. Even if Congress were to authorize a strike, a clear majority, 55%, would still oppose military action in Syria. Although an overwhelming majority think it is likely Bashar Assad used chemical weapons, 69% don't think it is a matter of US national security. 

The results speak to the terrible job the Obama Administration has done in trying to sell the public on the need for military action. On the eve of the US invasion of Iraq, 85% of Americans supported military action, if that action had the support of the United Nations. Even without UN support, 54% of Americans supported an invasion of Iraq. While most Americans grew to oppose the Iraq War after years of a turbulent occupation of the country, President Bush did a far better job of swaying public opinion than Barack Obama has achieved. 

The issue is a particular risk for members of Congress. Before the Iraq War, more Americans said they would be more likely to support a lawmaker who voted to authorize military action than voted to oppose. Today, just 11% say they would support a lawmaker who voted for military action in Syria. Almost three times as many, 31%, say they would definitely oppose an elected official who supports action in Syria. 

President Obama has been cocooned by the media. His reelection against an inept Romney campaign led him to the false notion that he has a personal mandate with the American public. He mistakenly believes that the public will, preternaturally, rally behind his position. 

Syria should be his own, private wake-up call. 

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading...

Foxes in the henhouse: Napolitano gurus probed for meddling in Secret Service sex scandal

A Senate panel is investigating whether former Homeland Security Secretary Janet A. Napolitano’s close allies pushed the department’s inspector general to tread lightly in its investigation of the prostitution scandal involving the U.S. Secret Service.

Government sources familiar with the probe say Senate investigators are looking into John Sandweg, the secretary’s former general counsel whom she recently promoted to acting chief of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and her former chief of staff, Noah Kroloff, who, shortly after the 2012 prostitution scandal subsided, formed a private consulting firm with Mark Sullivan, who retired in March as head of the Secret Service.

---

PHOTOS: The 10 worst jobs in Washington

---

The sources say the Senate panel received information that suggests Mr. Sandweg pressured Homeland Security Inspector General Charles Edwards to slow-walk his final report until after the November presidential election.

The investigation was spurred by whistleblower accusations that Mr. Edwards was “susceptible to political pressure” in issuing a favorable investigative report on the Secret Service, according to a June 27 letter to him from the panel, and that his investigators “changed and withheld” information that would have been damaging to the service.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, Missouri Democrat and chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security subcommittee on contracting oversight, and Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, the panel’s ranking Republican, initiated the probe in May after receiving whistleblower complaints.

Via: Washington Times

Continue Reading....

Congress scheduled to cast first Syria vote on Wednesday 09/11

Congress is scheduled to cast its first vote on Wednesday on the question of whether to authorize military intervention in Syria. 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said that senators should plan to vote "sometime" on Wednesday on a motion to proceed to the Syria resolution, a procedural vote that will offer an early glimpse at whether President Barack Obama has the necessary votes in the upper chamber to support his request for authorization to strike Syria. 

The vote will follow Obama's prime-time address to the nation on Tuesday evening, as well as the president's visit to Capitol Hill on Tuesday afternoon to huddle privately with Senate Democrats. (Reid said that Obama had also offered to meet privately with Republican senators.)

In remarks on the Senate floor, Reid, the Senate's top Democrat, exhorted colleagues to support the resolution.

"America's willingness to stand for what's right should not end at our borders," the majority leader said.

Reid even invoked a line from Dante's "Inferno:" “The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.”

Via: NBC News

Continue Reading....

CURL: The president thinks you’re stupid (and so do ) …

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

… the vice president, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, everyone in Congress (even the dumbest guy there, Al Franken), the Supreme Court, the Washington media — enough, you get the picture, right? You’re Stupid.

How else to explain everything they do, much of what they say? They must think we’re all idiots or they simply wouldn’t do what they do, say what they say — it’s the only explanation.

Consider this: On Aug. 31, after dodging questions on Syria for more than a week, President Obama headed to the Rose Garden to give a 10-minute statement. He’d made some decisions, and he had to let America know right away — because this was urgent, URGENT!

“Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets,” the president said about the then 10-day-old “chemical weapons” attack on civilians (he was on vacation in Martha’s Vineyard when the attack happened).

But wait, there’s more! Americans, he said, should get to speak about this burning issue, “And that’s why I’ve made a second decision ” he said, announcing he’d go to Congress for approval. He’s “ready to act!” to face down this immediate threat to America, he declared.

Then, he and Joseph R. Biden headed to the links for a five-hour round of golf. That’s right, they went golfing. The buck, apparently, stops with Congress, freeing up America’s top leaders for a little R&R.

What’s more, the day after Mr. Obama made this dire announcement, he jetted off to … Sweden! Yes, land of his Nobel Peace Prize. No, he did not cancel his tour through Scandinavia to work members of Congress for support. Instead, he headed to the Royal Institute of Technology to view the “First Commercially Viable Hybrid Solution for Trucks and Buses.” Important stuff.

Via: The Washington Times

Continue Reading.,...

.

10 Ways Obamacare Isn’t Working

Obamacare is an unworkable law.

It’s obvious because the Administration keeps trying to “fix” it—to no avail. It has delayed parts of the law, ignored others, and carved out exemptions for its political allies.

1. WAIVERS: The Administration established a legally questionable program of temporary waivers when firms announced they were considering dropping coverage rather than comply with the law’s costly requirements. Even though more than half of the recipients of these waivers were members of union plans, many union leaders are still not satisfied—they wantanother waiver, to receive taxpayer-funded subsidies for their employer-provided coverage.

2. ILLEGAL TAXPAYER SUBSIDIES FOR CONGRESS: Last month, following heavy lobbying from leaders in both parties—and an intervention from President Obama himself—the Administration issued a rule regarding coverage for Members of Congress and their staffs, who will retain their taxpayer-funded insurance subsidies in the exchanges. Unfortunately, asprevious research has documented, the Administration had no legal basis on which to make this ruling.

3. EMPLOYER MANDATE: In July, the Administration announced it would not enforce Obamacare’s employer mandate until 2015, effectively granting big business a one-year delay. This action came despite language in Section 1514(d) of the law requiring employers to act “beginning after December 31, 2013,” and despite the fact that hard-working Americans are not getting a delay from the other harmful effects of Obamacare.

4. PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS: Immediately after Obamacare was signed, Democratic staffers admitted that under the law as written, insurers “still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem.” The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) took it upon itself to issue regulations prohibiting plans from turning down such applicants three years earlier than the law required. As a result, insurersstopped offering child-only plans in 17 states, fearing that only parents of sick children would apply for insurance coverage.

Via: The Foundry

Continue Reading....

The Right Medicine

Despite Democratic claims to the contrary, conservatives 

have their own plans for reforming health care

Conservatives have a wealth of policy ideas about reforming healthcare but have failed to unite around any specific policy proposal, according to multiple healthcare experts who rejected claims from Democrats that the GOP has no substantial alternatives to Obamacare and is seeking to do nothing but delay and obstruct.

Lanhee Chen, policy director for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, voiced frustration with the GOP for failing to cohere around a single reform strategy.

“I feel very strongly that Republicans have to be able to articulate an alternative to Obamacare,” said Chen. “I don’t think it’s enough for us to say Obamacare stinks and we don’t like it. I think everybody gets that.”

Avik Roy, a healthcare expert at the Manhattan Institute, concurred that this has been a problem.

“It hasn’t been a policy priority for conservatives,” Roy said.

Several Republican legislators have taken on the challenge of introducing actual legislation since Obamacare has become the law.

Rep. Tom Price (Ga.) reintroduced his “Empowering Patients First Act” this year, while the Republican Study Committee will release its own legislation as Congress comes back from the August recess, although details have been kept tightly under wraps.

Both of these proposals begin by replacing Obamacare.

“It sets up an alternative, a positive alternative,” said Price. He touted his reform as the “most comprehensive” alternative to Obamacare.

Via: WFB

Continue Reading...

China sending warship to Syrian coast

We spend a lot of time debating the domestic ramifications of President Obama’s handling – to use the word loosely – of the situation in Syria, ranging from political fallout to impacts on upcoming elections. But it’s a big world out there and other countries have taken a keen interest in the subject. You can now bump up the level of engagement that China has in this mess, as they have dispatched a warship of their own to the party.

China has reportedly sent warships to the coast of Syria to “observe” the actions of US and Russian ships as tensions build in preparation for a potential military strike on Syria which could come as soon as next week.

According to the Russian news outlet Telegrafist.org, the People’s Liberation Army dispatched the Jinggangshan amphibious dock landing ship and the vessel was seen passing through the Red Sea towards the Suez Canal, the waterway in Egypt that leads to the Mediterranean Sea and waters off the coast of Israel, Lebanon and Syria.

It may be for “observation” purposes, but this is no Carnival cruise ship. Launched in 2011, the Jinggangshan was built for action.

China has launched its largest amphibious dock landing warship, the 19,000 metric ton Jinggangshan, in Shanghai.

The 689-foot-long warship can carry 1,000 soldiers, helicopters, armored fighting vehicles, boats and landing craft, a report in the China Daily said.

The vessel is the second Type 071 dock landing ship built by Shanghai’s Hudong-Zhonghua Shipbuilding.

In addition to the troop and chopper carrying capabilities, the ship has a number of conventional guns. This comes on the heels of news that Russia already dispatched ships to the region this week, so it’s starting to get a little crowded out there. I was watching Fox and Friends this morning – where I first saw the story – and there were some probablyhyperbolic comparisons being made to 1914, but it does make one wonder. Over the past two decades, when the United States has decided to launch any sort of air strikes from mobile / naval platforms, it was just taken as a given that we could do it. And our targets generally don’t have much in the way of sea power to challenge elements of the most powerful navy on the planet. But the Russians and the Chinese have considerable forces as well.

Via: Hot Air

Continue Reading....

Americans Being Forced to Pay for Al Jazeera

Two weeks ago, Al Jazeera America launched, beaming into 48 million homes across the country. The media company that allowed Osama bin Laden to use it as a vehicle to communicate with jihadists around the world is now on your TV screen and you are paying for it. The network pushed its way onto basic cable packages with several providers. If you subscribe to Verizon, Comcast, Dish Network or DirecTV, you are forced to subsidize Al Jazeera's propaganda as part of your cable bill whether you like it or not.

I represent a district about 70 miles north of where the Twin Towers once stood. Thousands of my constituents commute to Manhattan every day.  People from this area perished in the savage attacks of September 11, 2001.  Serviceman from our community made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting to prevent another attack.  Four Marines I served with left everything they had on the battlefields of Iraq.  When constituents contacted my office to express outrage that Al Jazeera America is now part of their basic cable package, I took it very seriously.

We should not have to fund Al Jazeera through our cable bills. Americans do not want to pay for their vile propaganda. I'm launching a petition drive calling on cable companies to drop Al Jazeera from their basic cable packages.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading....

Picture this: Time for officials to pay for their own portraits, lawmaker says

A Louisiana Republican has introduced a bill to put an end to taxpayers footing the bill for official, commissioned portraits of Washington’s movers and shakers.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Rep. Bill Cassidy introduced the legislation – called the EGO Act, or Eliminating Government-funded Oil Painting – after reports

"Lisa Jackson can borrow my camera for free," he suggested as an alternative, the paper reported.

"Lisa Jackson can borrow my camera for free."- Rep. Bill Cassidy, R-La.

"At a time of trillion-dollar deficits, it is not appropriate to spend thousands of dollars on official paintings," Cassidy wrote to the House Appropriations Committee.

"If agency administrators, Cabinet secretaries or members of Congress feel it necessary to commission portraits, they should be responsible for paying for them."

But it could turn out to be a hard tradition to end, as the capital is full of portraits of government officials. And in the case of Elliot Richardson, there are four oil paintings – one for each department he headed in the 1970s, the Los Angeles Times reported

Via: Fox News Politics

Continue Reading....

Corporations Switching to Healthcare Exchanges to Cover Retirees

More companies are beginning to use private healthcare-exchange programs, similar to those being set up under Obamacare, to cover their retirees and to give participants more choices of plans at fixed costs, The Wall Street Journal Reports.

Time Warner Inc. is the latest corporation to announce the change, that will take effect Jan. 1, according to the Journal. It joins IBM, which also announced recently it would move 110,000 retirees off of its company-sponsored plan to an established private Medicare insurance exchange. 

Time Warner said in a memo the change to a healthcare exchange would give its former employees more insurance choices, while creating more stability for the company to predict costs. 

For its part, IBM says the current retirees benefit plan has become increasingly more expensive and that the change will cut costs. The company will use Extend Health, an exchange created in 2004 that already includes 300 companies, including 50 that are Fortune 500 companies.

"There are still quite a few others coming," said Bryce Williams, managing director of Towers Watson Exchange Solutions, the parent company of Extend Health.
"We are at the front end of the wave.

Under the new exchange system, retirees will get an annual payment through a health retirement account to purchase Medicare Advantage plans, supplemental Medicare polices, and pay for other medical expenses.

Williams said the change would understandably cause some initial concern for seniors.

"This starts out being scary for most people," he said.

However, Ariel Gonzalez, director of federal health and family government affairs for AARP, said his advocacy group and others see the exchanges as a positive development so long as benefits are not cut and costs remain low.

"If cost sharing becomes too burdensome for retirees, then that would definitely raise concerns," Gonzalez said.

Via: Newsmax

Continue Reading....

Syria welcomes international control over chemical weapons

After meeting Syrian counterpart, Russian foreign minister says he’ll push Assad to give up WMDs to avoid airstrikes; Kerry: Attack can be averted if Damascus agrees to cede ‘every single bit’ of its chemical arsenal by week’s end

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem on Monday welcomed Moscow’s proposal to submit Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles to international control, Reuters reported. The surprise announcement came following a meeting between Moallem Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, hours after US Secretary of State John Kerry said such a move could avert a limited US strike on the country in retaliation for a lethal August 21 chemical weapons attack.

“Syria welcomes the Russian proposal out of concern for the lives of the Syrian people, the security of our country and because it believes in the wisdom of the Russian leadership that seeks to avert American aggression against our people,” Moallem said.

British Prime Minister David Cameron, a key US ally, reacted favorably to Syria’s declaration, saying the notion of putting the Assad regime’s stockpile of chemical weapons under international supervision was “a big step forward.” He warned, however, that “we have to be careful, though, to make sure this is not a distraction tactic to discuss something else rather than the problem on the table.”

Via: The Times of Israel

Continue Reading....