Unfortunately Voter Fraud Is Real

These two videos are from YouTube.

This is a picture of a voting machine that wants to vote for you:

This is a short video commenting on the problems with the machines:

Our county uses paper ballots. I didn’t understand why until yesterday when I talked to a person who had the machine change his vote in the 2010 Primary Election. He had to touch the square five times before it registered on his candidate. The first four times, the machine switched his vote to the other candidate. There is a county is Texas that has switched to paper ballots for early voting because voters complained that the machine was changing their votes. This is totally unacceptable. We need an honest election.

Are We Losing Our Religious Freedom?

Yesterday Fox News reported the story of Eric Walsh, a lay minister in Georgia. The State of Georgia has asked that Dr. Walsh turn over copies of his sermons.

The article reports:

“Please produce a copy of your sermon notes and/or transcripts,” Attorney General Samuel Olens wrote to attorneys representing Dr. Eric Walsh.

…Walsh, a Seventh-day Adventist lay minister had been hired in May 2014 by as a District Health Director with the Georgia Department of Public Health. A week later, a government official asked him to submit copies of his sermons for review. He complied and two days later he was fired.

His attorneys said the government was curious about sermons Dr. Walsh delivered on health, marriage, sexuality, world religions, science and creationism. He also preached on what the Bible says regarding homosexuality.

He has since filed a federal lawsuit charging state officials with engaging in religious discrimination.

“He was fired for something he said in a sermon,” attorney Jeremy Dys told me. “If the government is allowed to fire someone over what he said in his sermons, they can come after any of us for our beliefs on anything.”

Dr. Walsh has assembled a powerhouse legal team comprised of Parks, Chesin & Walbert along with First Liberty Institute, one of the nation’s most prominent religious liberty law firms.

“It’s an incredible intrusion on the sanctity of the pulpit,” Dys said. “This is probably the most invasive reach into the pulpit by the state that I’ve ever seen.”

The First Amendment applies to churches. The government has no right to examine or control what is preached from America‘s pulpits. Although separation of church and state is not part of the Constitution (the concept is based on a letter from Thomas Jefferson), the Constitution states that the government does not have the right to interfere with the free exercise of religion.

This is not the first time a pastor has been asked to submit his sermons to the government. About two years ago I posted an article about a similar request in Texas.

These requests are unconstitutional. We need to make sure that they are not allowed to stand.


In Case You Were Wondering

As the leaked emails flow from Wikileaks, have you wondered if they are accurate and really from the source claimed? I have, but evidently that is partially due to my limited knowledge of electronics and how the Internet works.

Yesterday Breitbart posted an article explaining how to verify the content (and, I assume, sender and recipient of an email).

The article explains:

A digital key buried in the emails sent by Hillary Clinton’s staff shows that many of the most important emails released via Wikileaks have not been modified or falsified, according to a series of tests conducted by security experts and by Breitbart News.

The tests are important because they undermine efforts by Democrats to deter media coverage of the Wikileaks emails with vague claims that the messages cannot be verified, or could be faked, or modified. So far, those claims have been made by Donna Brazile, the interim head of the Democratic National Committee, and by Sen. Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton’s choice for her vice-president.

On Tuesday, for example, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Tuesday that “I can’t verify the integrity of these emails,” when he was asked about an email which showed Clinton’s staff knew that President Barack Obama was communicating with Clinton via her secret home-made email system. The email contradicts Obama’s March 2015 claim that he learned about Clinton’s server at “the same time everybody else learned it through news reports.”

But Breitbart News used commercial software and a basic e-mail verification system to confirm that the Clinton staff email — “he has emails from her — they do not say state.gov” — is valid, true and unmodified.

The article includes pictures of some of the emails and explains the method of verifying that they are real and have not been altered. As I previously explained, electronics is not my strong point, so I won’t try to explain the process.

The bottom line here is that the negative information that is coming out about Hillary Clinton is real. It is also now proven that President Obama emailed Hillary Clinton at her private server. That means that he lied to America when he said that he found out about Hillary Clinton’s private server when he read it in the newspaper.

So why is the Obama Administration aiding in the coverup of the Hillary Clinton scandals? What we are watching is the Washington establishment (both parties) trying desperately to cling to power. If Donald Trump is elected, he may keep his promise to ‘drain the swamp’ that Washington has become. That is a serious threat to the financial and physical well being of a lot of very powerful people. It is also something that is desperately needed. The best thing all of us can do at this point is ignore anything reported by the mainstream media or said by an establishment politician for the next ten days. I think the next week or so is going to contain an awful lot of mud aimed at Donald Trump. I doubt that any of what is reported will be accurate.

This Isn’t Really A Surprise

How many promises that were made so that ObamaCare would pass Congress have been broken? Do you remember that not one Republican voted for ObamaCare and that the certification of the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts was delayed long enough so that he would not be seated in time to vote against ObamaCare? Do you remember Nancy Pelosi saying, “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it away from the fog of the controversy?” Was it a fog of controversy or a fog of deception? Right now it looks as if it might have been a fog of deception. Remember, “If you like your plan, you can keep it?” Remember, “If you like your doctor, you can keep him?” How is that working for you?

CBS New York posted a story yesterday about the upcoming rise in ObamaCare premiums.

The story reports:

The Department of Health and Human Services revealed Monday that premiums for a midlevel benchmark plan will increase an average of 25 percent across the 39 states served by the federally run online market, and that about 1 in 5 consumers will have plans only from a single insurer to pick from, after major national carriers such as UnitedHealth Group, Humana and Aetna scaled back their roles.

However, in Arizona, unsubsidized premiums for a hypothetical 27-year-old buying a benchmark “second-lowest cost silver plan” will jump by 116 percent, from $196 to $422, according to the administration report.

The Obama Administration claims that along with these increases in premiums there will be increases in the subsidies paid to Americans buying health insurance. Who pays the subsidies? The subsidies are paid for by taxpaying Americans (most of whom are not eligible for the subsidies). This plan essentially uses the cover of health insurance to redistribute wealth. It takes money away from the working middle class and gives it to the underclasses, insuring future votes from the underclass who don’t want the free ride to end.

ObamaCare was designed to fail. The eventual goal is government healthcare–where the government controls who receives treatment and what treatment they receive. It it important to note that many Canadians come to America for surgery to avoid their own government healthcare. That should tell us all we need to know about the quality of government healthcare.

A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for government healthcare. It is also a vote for higher taxes on people who work for a living. It is also a vote for limits on free speech and limits on gun ownership. That is the world she represents.


We Have Lost Our Perspective On Life

Last week The Washington Times posted an article about Stephanie Packer, a California woman suffering from a terminal form of scleroderma (a cancer).

The article reports:

Stephanie Packer, a wife and mother of four who was diagnosed with a terminal form of scleroderma, said her insurance company initially indicated it would pay for her to switch to a different chemotherapy drug at the recommendation of her doctors.

“For a while, five months or so, we’ve been trying to get me on a different chemotherapy drug for the infusions, because my doctor felt that it would be less toxic than some of the other drugs that we were going to be using,” Ms. Packer said in a video distributed by The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network on Monday.

“And I was going back and forth, and finally I had heard back from them, and they said, ‘Yes, we’re going to get it covered, we just have to fix a couple of things,’” she continued.

But shortly after California’s End of Life Option Act, which authorizes physicians to diagnose a life-ending dose of medication to patients with a prognosis of six months or less to live, went into effect, Ms. Packer’s insurance company had a change of heart.

“And when the law was passed, it was a week later I received a letter in the mail saying they were going to deny coverage for the chemotherapy that we were asking for,” Ms. Packer said.

The article goes on to explain that when Ms. Packer called the insurance company to ask about their decision, she asked if they would cover suicide pills. The representative explained that suicide pills would be covered under her plan.

The article further reports:

Her story comes as the D.C. Council considers permitting physician-assisted suicide. Modeled on Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act, the District’s legislation would allow terminally ill patients to self-administer life-ending drugs at home.

The “Death With Dignity Act” will go before the D.C. Council for a final vote on Nov. 1.

After the right-to-die movement began garnering national attention, Ms. Packer said she noticed a change in tone at her support groups for terminally ill patients. While the meetings were formerly positive and encouraging, she said the specter of suicide now hangs above them like a dark cloud.

“And people, once they became depressed, it became negative, and it started consuming people,” she said in the video. “And then they said, ‘You know what? I wish I could just end it.’”

It is cheaper to kill someone than to treat their disease, so how do you make it acceptable? Simple, you paint the murder with nice words–it is compassionate to kill someone who is suffering, it is compassionate to save the family and the healthcare provider the cost of treatment, it is compassionate to protect the family from seeing their loved one suffer. No matter how you phrase it, you have decided to murder someone for the sake of convenience. We have reached the point where murder is only against the law when it does not apply to the unborn and the sick. We will soon reach the point where murder is only against the law when it does not apply to the elderly. Then it will be murder is not against the law when it applies to the handicapped. You get the picture.

I would like to say that a patient always has the option of refusing treatment if they chose not to go through the rigors of chemotherapy; however, that is different than taking suicide pills and ending your life. As people, we are not in charge of life and death–that is seriously above our pay grade. It is a mistake to think that insurance companies or the government have the right to determine who lives and who dies.

Why We Need Financial Accountability In Washington

On Monday, The Los Angeles Times posted an article about the Pentagon‘s request that California members of the National Guard pay back their re-enlistment bonuses.

The article reports:

The California National Guard told the state’s members of Congress two years ago that the Pentagon was trying to claw back reenlistment bonuses from thousands of soldiers, and even offered a proposal to mitigate the problem, but Congress took no action, according to a senior National Guard official.

The official added that improper bonuses had been paid to National Guard members in every state, raising the possibility that many more soldiers may owe large debts to the Pentagon.

“This is a national issue and affects all states,” Andreas Mueller, the chief of federal policy for the California Guard, wrote in an email to the state’s congressional delegation Monday. Attention had focused on California because it was “the only state that audited” bonus payments at the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he added.

In the email, Mueller reminded members of Congress that the Guard had informed them about the issue two years ago. Whether members of Congress understood the scope of the problem at the time is unclear.

Nothing like punishing the little people for the mistakes of the bureaucracy.

The article goes on to report the following:

Army Master Sgt. Toni Jaffe, the California Guard’s incentive manager, pleaded guilty in 2011 to filing false claims of $15.2 million and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison. Three officers also pleaded guilty to fraud and were put on probation after paying restitution.

This is a disgrace. Promises were made, and even if those promises were made in error, they still need to be kept. To ask the members of the National Guard, who generally don’t earn much to begin with, to pay back thousands of dollars because the bureaucracy made a mistake is simply wrong. I also wonder why the California Congressional delegation chose to be quiet about the matter for two years.

When You Vote, Make Sure The Machine Gets It Right

There are numerous stories floating around the Internet today about voting machines changing the votes of the people voting. Breitbart posted a story today about a Texas county that has switched to paper ballots until they get their voting machines re calibrated.

The article reports:

Chambers County Clerk Heather Hawthorne told Breitbart Texas Tuesday morning that all electronic voting was temporarily halted until her office completes a “software update” on ES&S machines that otherwise “omit one race” when a straight ticket option is selected for either major party. The Texas 14th Court of Appeals race was reported to be the contest in which voters commonly experienced the glitch.

Hawthorne explained that she expects the technical difficulties to be completely addressed by end of business Tuesday. In the interim, regular paper ballots will be used. The county clerk told Breitbart Texas that before the machines were pulled, poll workers were instructed to alert voters to the glitch and double-check their selections.

There have been reports of similar incidents in other states also. Hopefully, the problems will be corrected, and votes will be counted accurately.

How Does This Accurately Inform The American People?

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit posted an article based on Wikileaks information about the relationship between the Clinton campaign and the media.

The article reports:

Thanks to Wikileaks we now know that at least 65 mainstream reporters were working closely with the Clinton campaign this election year. They were invited to top elitist dinners with Hillary Campaign Chairman John Podesta or Chief Campaign strategist Joel Benenson.


…We also know that Politico’s chief political correspondent Glenn Thrush was sending the Hillary campaign articles for their review before publishing.

We know CNBC and New York Times reporter John Harwood was working with the Clinton campaign to help Hillary.

At least 65 mainstream media reporters were chummy with the Hillary campaign from the beginning.\

How are Americans supposed to make intelligent decisions about voting when a large portion of the media is working with one of the candidates? Please follow the link above to read the entire article and see the list of media people included.

Science For Fun And Profit

The Daily Caller posted a story about climate research at the global warming research center at the London School of Economics.

The article reports:

The UK government gave $11 million dollars to the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP) in exchange for research that the organization reportedly never actually did.

Many papers CCCEP claimed to have published to get government money weren’t about global warming, were written before the organization was even founded, or were written by researchers unaffiliated with CCCEP. The government never checked CCCEP’s supposed publication lists, saying they were “taken on trust,” according to the report.

…“It is serious misconduct to claim credit for a paper you haven’t supported, and it’s fraud to use that in a bid to renew a grant,” Professor Richard Tol, a climate economics expert from Sussex University whose research was reportedly stolen by CCCEP, told The Daily Mail. “I’ve never come across anything like it before. It stinks.”

Meanwhile, the CCCEP was attempting to get another $5.4 million from the government to pay for operations until 2018.

The article also reports:

The author who received $3.65 million, Charles Driscoll, even admitted to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that the result of his study was predetermined, saying “in doing this study we wanted to bring attention to the additional benefits from carbon controls.”

Now think about that for a minute. If the results of the study were predetermined, why did they do the study? Also, what does that tell us about the scientific aspect of the studies on climate control–are those results predetermined also? Even with my limited knowledge of the Scientific Method, I know there is something wrong with reaching the conclusion before you do the research (or without doing the research).

In case you are a new reader of this blog, I would like to recommend wattsupwiththat.com as the best, most honest website on the Internet dealing with climate change.

How To Undermine An Investigation

Wikileaks is giving us tremendous insight into the corruption that seems to encompass Washington politics, but there are still some people who are doing investigative reporting and posting the information on the internet for everyone to see. This article is a combination of an article citing information from Wikileaks and an article that is the result of some good investigative reporting.

Yesterday Lifezette posted an article about some emails released by Wikileaks relating to the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

The article reports:

The email in question is a list of recent voicemail messages left for Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta around Oct. 6, 2015, including one from McCaskill. “Give me a call back at your convenient [sic] on my cell or at home. Got some info about the state department IG,” she said. “You guys should digest and figure out what if anything we can do.”

…Adam Jentleson, a top aide to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, planted a story in The New York Times alleging a past connection between a single staffer in the IG’s office and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley was evidence of “fishy” activity.

Jentleson noted the deputy inspector general at the State Department was Emilia DiSanto, who had previously been a top aide to Grassley and alleged DiSanto could be improperly feeding information on the State Department inquiry to her former boss.

“There does seem to be a fishy pattern here, and a fishy connection,” Jentleson told The New York Times.

A separate email released by WikiLeaks last week seems to confirm the Clinton camp had put Reid’s office up to the attack on the IG’s credibility.

Let’s get something straight. Hillary Clinton’s private email server was a threat to national security. There is little doubt that the server was hacked by any foreign intelligence service worth its salt. This is a national security matter–not a political matter. It speaks volumes that the Democratic party and The New York Times were willing to turn it into a political matter.

Now to go to the investigative reporting part of the story. Twitchy posted an article yesterday about another aspect of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private server.

The article reports:

The quick and dirty summary is that Gov. McAuliffe’s super PAC donated the $467,500 in a failed attempt to elect Dr. Jill McCabe to the state senate in 2015. She lost the race to the incumbent Republican, but shortly after the election her husband — Andrew McCabe — was promoted to Deputy Director of the FBI and one of his jobs was an “oversight role in the investigation into Secretary Clinton’s emails.”

It is long past time to clean house in Washington. Americans have become the victims of political incest!

If You Repeat A Lie Often Enough, People Accept It As Truth

On Thursday, Fred Fleitz posted an article at National Review about Hillary Clinton‘s claim that 17 U.S. intelligence agencies determined that Russia was responsible for the wikileaks release of damaging DNC emails and damaging Hillary Clinton emails. That statement does not line up with the facts.

The article reports:

What Clinton said was false and misleading. First of all, only two intelligence entities – the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – have weighed in on this issue, not 17 intelligence agencies. And what they said was ambiguous about Russian involvement. An unclassified October 7, 2016 joint DNI-DHS statement on this issue said the hacks. . . are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow — the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europa and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.

The author of the article explains the problem he has with that statement:

My problem with the DNI/DHS unclassified statement is that it appeared to be another effort by the Obama administration to politicize U.S. intelligence. Make no mistake, U.S. intelligence agencies issued this unprecedented unclassified statement a month before a presidential election that was so useful to one party because the Clinton campaign asked for it. The Obama administration was happy to comply.

This is another example of the fact that the Obama Administration has totally politicized every aspect of our government. Government agencies that need to operate independently of partisan politics has not operated that way under President Obama. It is a safe bet that they will be equally political under a President Hillary Clinton.

The article at National Review concludes:

Maybe the Russians are behind the WikiLeak hacks of Democrat e-mails, possibly to influence the 2016 presidential election. I’m not convinced of this. I’m more concerned that these constant leaks of Democratic e-mails demonstrate that Democratic officials appear to have no understanding of the need for Internet security. This makes me wonder if John Podesta’s e-mail password is “password.” These are the people Clinton will be giving senior jobs with high-level security clearances. That is the real security scandal that no one is talking about.

Fred Fleitz is a senior vice president for policy and programs with the Center for Security Policy. He worked in national-security positions for 25 years with the CIA, the State Department, and the House Intelligence Committee.



I Don’t Understand How This Is Legal

The Common Core Diva posted an article today about the money being spent on the data mining of our students under Common Core. The article includes the following:

commoncoreushouse-appropriationsI guess I just don’t understand how this works–how is it legal to use Medicaid funds for education.

The article explains what is going on:

If you’re not sure how the Library and Museum Grants are going to be used against us and help shift our community culture to an aligned ‘one for all’ compliant group:

Related and  a bit dated (2015), I exposed how Medicaid would be used to help align our students via loans, education, and all kinds of other federal overreach (for example: American Apprenticeships). At the crux? Sen. Lamar Alexander! See:

So, what else is this Report hiding? Below is a short list of hidden federal overreaches in education.
a) Continued use of taxpayer money  without our consent. Congress covered its backside with this excerpt: “Within the funds provided, the Committee has focused increases on priority areas and reduced funding for programs that are no longer authorized, are of limited scope or effectiveness, or do not have a clear Federal role.”

b) Topping the priorities: biomedical research. Biggest ‘winner’? NIH (National Institutes of Health) I first wrote about the educational overreach via the NIH back in 2014. It has not only continued since then, but has increased its overreach, thanks to Congress. What is becoming more obvious is that the Affordable Health Care is being embedded in not only education, but every aspect of our lives.
See: https://commoncorediva.wordpress.com/2014/12/13/sic-em-saturday-more-fed-budget-watch/

c) The Brain Initiative is among the top priorities. It’s yet another White House led plan of overreach. Learn more: https://www.braininitiative.nih.gov/?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
Knowing how ESSA and its mandates include using students, teachers, and families as research subjects, this is a very big area of concern!

d) CDC (Centers for Disease Control) and SAMSHA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration) also get boosts of taxpayer money. Thanks to ESSA and its abuse of Title One funding in addition to the RTIs (Responses to Intervention) and Behavior Intervention and Management, as well as the data mining/tracking, our schools are absolutely in harm’s way of more federal overreach in education. How? ESSA plainly states that anything and everything..as long as its in the name of ‘student success’ is permissible; thereby open to being funded..with OUR money!

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. The government overreach into our children’s minds is frightening. Parents need to wake up and see what is happening to our schools. Our children are not being educated–they are being indoctrinated and physiologically manipulated into becoming compliant citizens. Please carefully check your candidates to see where they stand on Common Core and the government takeover of education.

I Guess I Am More Than A Little Naive

The following story was posted at DaTechGuyBlog on October 14th:

This is exactly what happened:

Yesterday afternoon in sunny and hot Miami my friend answered the doorbell. I kept an eye from the window.

An average-sized man in his thirties, wearing a pink polo shirt and khakis, holding a clipboard, immediately said hello in Spanish, and asked her if she was [her name], registered at that address. She said yes.

At that point I moved closer to the entrance but he could not see me. I could hear the conversation very clearly. The entire conversation was in Spanish. He spoke very clear, native-speaker quality Spanish.

The man did not identify himself nor did he declare any affiliation with any political party or committee, polling organization, or business of any kind.

He handed her a cell phone with questions that he claimed were “on the issues affecting our community”, but the list of five questions in English were all negative statements about Donald Trump, “I do not like how he treats women,” “I do not like his stance of immigration,” among them. The statements were in large enough bold print she could read them without her reading glasses. He asked her to check the ones she agreed with.

Her reply was that she does not answer political questions, and gave him back the phone. She had to repeat this a couple of times, until the guy finally realized he was getting nowhere.

He then asked her if she would prefer that no further polls be conducted at her house. She said yes.

The man, still speaking Spanish, pulled a sheet of paper from his clipboard and asked her to fill in a form, telling her that, if she signed that form, she would not be approached again with any polls.

My friend was not wearing her reading glasses so she took the form indoors. I went to the door (this is the first time he saw me), excused myself and locked the door.

I did not stop long enough to see whether the man carried or wore any ID tags or anything showing any affiliation. None were apparent at first glance. I just wasn’t going to leave an unlocked door unattended.

I looked at the paper my friend was holding. It had three copies on one page of a form saying, in English,


followed by some more text in English, and three lines for the respondent to fill in their name and address.

Again, I repeat, the entire conversation was in Spanish.

But the form was in English. Only in English, with no Spanish translation anywhere.

I read it to her aloud, returned it to her and she opened the door, gave back the form to the man, and told him she did not appreciate being mislead. He asked her what she meant, and she told him that the form was a pledge to Hillary, not a do-not-call request.

He had the nerve to ask her why wouldn’t she pledge to Hillary, to which she curtly replied that she would not pledge for any political candidate since her vote is private. “Even for the best candidate?” he asked. She again said, “my vote is private.”

At this point, the guy thanked her, said good-bye and left.

I don’t know – and certainly I’m not about to ask – who she’s voting for, but Hillary did not make any friends there yesterday.

Parting questions: If there’s no intention to deceive, why no translation on the form? Why no disclosure of who he works for? Who is behind that survey?

To be very honest, this entire event would have gone entirely over my head, but DaTechGuy is considerably more savvy about these things than I am. His closing comment:

UPDATE DTG: I just read this piece and I don’t think Fausta gets what’s going on here. The reason for the form is obvious and that reason is fraud.

  1. Step 1: Go door to door in the spanish community for the purpose of getting signatures on a form pledging the non english reading voters for Hillary Clinton with the name and address and an authentic signature
  2. Step 2: Submit absentee ballots in the name of the above person for Hillary Clinton.

If the voter doesn’t show at the polls, perfect, they’re absentee ballot is counted for Hillary no questions asked.

If they show up the vote and attempt to vote causing said ballot to be questioned for any reason the signature sheet is produced.

This is actual fraud straight up and every person in that neighborhood is being targeted, and you can bet if it’s done at your friends house it’s being done everywhere else.

Fausta your friend needs to call the Florida AG and the local media STAT.


From Someone Who Would Know

Just a quick note from a website called Elijahlist:

From Steve Shultz (Founder of BCN News, The Elijah List) – I was stunned watching the debates to see how readily Hillary Clinton was to show approval of partial birth abortions right up until the time of the baby’s birth. And I was thrilled to hear Donald Trump say with conviction, “THAT’S NOT OK WITH ME!”

In 1973, I graduated from Christian Academy with Larry Koning. Now he’s Dr. Lawrence Koning, MD, and an OB/GYN specialist in Corona, CA. After watching the same debate last night, he posted a quote on his personal Facebook page which I share below.

This morning I asked Lawrence if I could share it with our readers. He thought about it only for a moment and sent back this message, “Do it!”

Dr. Lawrence Koning wrote:

October, 20, 2016: “As an OB/GYN physician for 31 years, there is no medical situation that requires aborting / killing the baby in the third trimester to ‘save the mother’s life.’ Just deliver the baby by C-section and the baby has 95+% survival with readily available NICU care even at 28 weeks. C-section is quicker and safer than partial birth abortion for the mother.”-Dr. Lawrence K. Koning, MD, FACOG

Voter Fraud Illustrated

This article has two sources–Breitbart and Nevo News. Both websites are reporting that North Carolina has 2,214 voters over the age of 110.

Nevo News is reporting the following:

Two voters — and, yes, they’ve already voted in early voting — are over 150! One in Gaston County is 154 and another in Granville County is an astonishing 160!

Breitbart reports the following:

Many are even older than 110. In fact, it seems that NC has an awful lot of voters that are 112, too. The Carolina Transparency project did a review of the voter rolls this year and found that there are 631 Democrats who are 112 or older. By contrast, the Republicans can only find 229 over 112 voters in the state (and “unaffiliated” found 39).

…This isn’t necessarily evidence of vote theft. It could be a massively failed voter registration system, although it is notable that the largest number of these voters just happen to be Democrats. But what ever is the case, it is highly unlikely to have this many centenarian voters still able to get out of their wheelchairs or retirement homes and have a run down to the polling place. Something certainly seems amiss in North Carolina.

Either these people hold the world record for longevity or we have a problem with our voter rolls. This is another example of why we need voter ID. Do you really want your vote cancelled out by someone impersonating an 160-year-old voter?

Well, We Know Where Some Of The Money Went

One of my pet peeves is campaign contributions by groups that receive grants from the government. This provides an incentive for Congress and the President to encourage these grants–they know it will free up money within whatever organization is involved to be used for campaign contributions. I am not for taking the money out of politics–that will always be there, but I for prohibiting groups (nonprofit or otherwise) that take money from the government from making campaign contributions to candidates or PACs.

The following is an example of my reasoning. Lifezette posted a story on October 10th about campaign donations made by Planned Parenthood.

The article reports:

Planned Parenthood is investing $30 million to make sure the nation’s most famous abortion activist takes over the White House.

The Planned Parenthood Action Fund Political Action Committee is hiring 800 professional canvassers and organizing 3,500 volunteers to get Hillary Clinton‘s message out in Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and other key states.

According to CNS News, Planned Parenthood received $540.6 million–was provided by taxpayer-funded government health services grants in fiscal year 2013. That represented about 45 percent of their revenue. I have no problem with employees giving time and money to whatever cause they choose, but organizations that take taxpayer money should not be allowed to make campaign contributions. To me, that seems like basic common sense.

A Republic Or A Banana Republic?

Yesterday Kelly Riddell posted an article at The Washington Times entitled, “The Obama-Clinton banana republic” with the subtitle, “The nation’s core values would continue to suffer under a Clinton presidency.”

In the article, she describes some of the traits of a healthy republic:

A fair, balanced, and independent Justice Department. Neutral diplomats, who serve the public over politics, at the State Department. An unbiased, honest, mainstream media.

She then notes that these values have eroded during the Obama Administration.

The article then cites examples of that erosion:

Two days after The Associated Press broke the story that Mrs. Clinton was using a private server in March 2015, John Podesta sent an email to her attorney Cheryl Mills, asking if they should decline to turn over emails between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama to Congress, invoking “executive privilege.”

The email clearly implies Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton had been exchanging emails on her private server — a huge potential security threat, given everything the president sends or receives is highly classified.

FBI notes also signal Mr. Obama was indeed aware and had corresponded with Mrs. Clinton on her private server long before the news broke.

In an April 2015 interview with Huma Abedin, a longtime Clinton aide, the FBI alerted her of an exchange between Mr. Obama — using a pseudonym — and Mrs. Clinton from 2012, where she exclaimed: “How is this not classified?” the report says.

As I noted in a previous post, Ms. Abedin also asked for a copy of the email–an insurance policy?

The article continues:

The FBI’s documents expose there was a “shadow government” at the State Department that tried to protect Mrs. Clinton throughout the email probe.

“There was a powerful group of very high-ranking State officials that some referred to as ‘The 7th Floor Group’ or ‘The Shadow Government.’ This group met every Wednesday afternoon to discuss the FOIA process, Congressional records, and everything Clinton-related to FOIA/Congressional inquiries,” the FBI’s interview summary said.

…The media has responded to these scandals by largely ignoring them — they’re too concerned with Donald Trump’s rhetoric than they are with anything that would impugn Mrs. Clinton’s or Mr. Obama’s record.

Instead, Yahoo’s Katie Couric was looking to do pieces that “would showcase her [Clinton‘s] personality and has a lot of viral potential,” according an email she sent to Mr. Podesta.

Our Founding Fathers put in the U.S. Constitution the concept of equal justice under the law. Under the Obama Administration we have obviously lost that concept. Unfortunately under a Hillary Clinton Administration, it could be permanently lost.

To anyone who is reading this who is voting for Hillary Clinton because you are an upstanding citizen, remember that when justice is unequally applied, even a small mistake can be used to make war against an ordinary citizen. I remind you that the only person who went to jail because of the Benghazi attack was the filmmaker, and he was innocent. The legal action that sent Dinesh d’Souza to jail was totally extreme in relation to the crime he committed–an illegal campaign donation.

As America approaches banana republic status, any breach of any law, regardless of how minor, can be used to put any America who opposes the government agenda in jail. Are you ready for that?



Today’s Shiny Object

One of the main weapons the press uses to manipulate the American public is the choice of which news stories to spend time on and which news stories to ignore. When you look at some of the coverage in this election campaign, it becomes very obvious that the media has taken sides.

Last Friday, The Federalist Papers website reported the following:

Between ABC News, NBC News, and CBS, they covered the Trump tape for 23 minutes during one night of coverage. The Clinton WikiLeaks revelations got just 56 seconds of coverage — with NBC News omitting it altogether.

There are two major differences between the Trump tape (and subsequent spurious allegations) and the Clinton revelations.

First, what Clinton has done has enormous implications for the country and our lives individually. She was First Lady, a senator, and secretary of state. What she’s done as a public servant affects us greatly. What she has said she will do as president if she’s elected has massive implications for the future of this country and the western world.

What Trump said 11 years ago, lewd as it was, has little effect on any of us personally or the future of this country. It’s not terribly likely to have much of an effect on any of our lives — not in the way Clinton’s scandals and policies will.

Today the focus is on an answer to a question Chris Wallace addressed to Donald Trump, but never to Hillary Clinton.

Today The Wall Street Journal reported:

Charges that election results might be rigged have moved from the fringes of U.S. politics to a central issue in the closing days of the 2016 campaign as Republican Donald Trump has repeatedly and without corroborating evidence suggested a fair outcome may be impossible.

You will find some form of this story in all of the major news sources. There is no mention of the times in recent history that Democrats claimed fraud.

From an October 2002 issue of Newsweek (posted at prnewswire)::

At a private fund-raiser in Los Angeles for Democratic Sen. Jean Carnahan of Missouri, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton told the crowd that President Bush merely had been “selected” president, not elected, Newsweek reports in the current issue. “You know, I’m a fan of Clintonomics,” she told the crowd while standing from a perch on the staircase of movie producer Alan Horn’s art-filled Bel Air home, “and this administration is destroying in months our eight years of economic progress.”

This was two years after the election, and Hillary Clinton was still complaining that the election has been rigged. John Kerry is on the record as saying similar things. There was a definite effort by the Democrats to delegitimize both elections of George W. Bush. The media needs to remember this in their criticism of Donald Trump.

Meanwhile, Project Veritas has released videos showing illegal activity on the part of the Clinton campaign and wikileaks has released emails showing corruption within the campaign and the media has provided very little information on the subject. It is a safe bet that many voters have little or no idea of any of the information contained in those videos or documents. How are voters going supposed to make an informed decision when the media chooses not to inform them?

This Is Unbelievable

There are a number of sources on this story. I chose Twitchy, a site that posted the story last night. During the debate last night, Hillary Clinton revealed our response time to a nuclear attack. That is classified information, and she revealed it on national television during the debate.

The article reminds us:

She also repeated on #DebateNight the established Democrat talking point that the contents of the documents posted by WikiLeaks aren’t nearly as important as the fact that Russia is hacking our servers — a threat so severe that she decided to set up her own private email server in her house.

It’s fine, though: she assured the public that just because she didn’t know what the (C) on her emails indicated, it didn’t matter as she treated everything as if it were at the highest level of classification … well, just about everything.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. The article includes tweets from people who realized what she had said as soon as she said it. This is a degree of carelessness that would be a genuine danger were Hillary Clinton to occupy the White House.

Lies And Lack Of Logic

I watched part of the Presidential debate last night and was someone confused by one of the claims made by Hillary Clinton. I remember the Heller case, and I don’t remember hearing anything relating to the case about toddlers. The Federalist website did the research for me. They posted an article late yesterday reminding us of the details of the Heller case.

The article reports:

It’s a lie so absurd that I honestly don’t know where to begin, but I’ll give it a shot: No, the Heller decision was not about toddlers. It had nothing to do with toddlers. Nothing. It’s no coincidence that the word “toddler” doesn’t appear in either the majority or dissenting opinions in the case. Nor does the word “toddler” appear anywhere in the 110-page transcript of the case’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court. Because the case had absolutely nothing to do with toddlers.

…No mention of toddlers. Because the case wasn’t about toddlers. It was about whether the District of Columbia’s “total ban on handguns” — the Supreme Court’s characterization of the law at issue in the case — was constitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that D.C.’s ban on handguns was unconstitutional and that Heller, a police officer, had a constitutional right to own and bear a firearm in his home. It had nothing whatsoever to do with toddlers.

If Clinton opposes an individual’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms to protect his or her family, she should just come out and say so instead of blatantly lying about the Supreme Court’s decision on the matter. But it gets better: after claiming that the Heller decision was all about toddlers, Hillary then claimed that the Constitution guarantees a right to partial-birth abortion, a practice that requires an abortionist to rip an unborn baby from the womb, stab or crush her skull, and then vacuum out her brains. Because Hillary Clinton’s top priority is protecting innocent children from violence.

I can’t even imagine who told Hillary Clinton that the Heller case was about toddlers or who thought the public would buy the lie. In the past, before the advent of alternative media, it might have worked. However, I am hoping the American public will investigate this on their own and see the absurdity of this claim.

What Kind Of A Treaty Does This?

Townhall.com posted an article today reporting that Iran has just sentenced two Americans to ten years in prison.

The article reports:

Iranian-Americans Baquer Namazi and his son Siamak have been sentenced to 10 years in prison and fined $4.8 million, according to Iran’s official news channel IRINN.

Iran officials say five people were convicted and sentenced for “cooperating with Iran’s enemies,” a government euphemism that usually implies cooperating with the United States.

Siamak Namazi was arrested nearly a year ago and became the first US citizen reported to have been detained in the country since the announcement of the Iranian nuclear program deal.

We paid the Iranians billions of dollars in cash to get the last four hostages back. Will there be another secret deal to get these men back?

Pardon The Language, But This Is Important

President Obama has been heavily involved in the Presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. The videos leaked by Project Veritas are letting Americans know how involved. Yesterday The Daily Caller posted an article that included one of the Project Veritas videos.

Here are some of the highlights from the video:

Hidden camera video from activist James O’Keefe showed Creamer bragging that his role within the Clinton campaign was to oversee the work of Americans United for Change, a non-profit organization that sent activists to Trump rallies.

Scott Foval, the national field director for Americans United for Change, explained how the scheme works.

“The [Clinton] campaign pays DNC, DNC pays Democracy Partners, Democracy Partners pays the Foval Group, The Foval Group goes and executes the s**t,” Foval told an undercover journalist.

One example of the “s**t” Foval executes was an instance in which a 69-year-old woman garnered headlines after claiming to be assaulted at a Trump rally.

“She was one of our activists,” Foval said.

Creamer’s job was to “manage” the work carried out by Foval.

“And the Democratic Party apparatus and the people from the campaign, the Clinton campaign and my role with the campaign, is to manage all that,” Creamer told an undercover journalist.

“Wherever Trump and Pence are gonna be we have events,” he said.

The article also notes:

Robert Creamer, who acted as a middle man between the Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee and “protesters” who tried — and succeeded — to provoke violence at Trump rallies met with President Obama during 47 of those 342 visits, according to White House records. Creamer’s last visit was in June 2016.

Can we please get these slimeballs out of Washington!