Saturday, January 28, 2012

Obama banned from Georgia ballot after State of the Union speech



The Judge pulled the lawyers for the three cases into chambers before it all began and advised them that he would be issuing a default judgment in our favor, since the Defense council failed to show, and wanted to end it there. We argued that all the evidence needed to be entered in to record so the Judge allowed for a speedy hearing where all evidence was entered into the court record. What that means is this… Any appeal, if one is even possible, would be based on the evidence provided by the lawyers in each case.

http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/obama-challenge-hearing-gavel-to-gavel-live-video-stream-coverage-from-atlanta-ga/
http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/16607410/judge-considers-whether-to-keep-obama-on-ballot
http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/georgia-eligibility-judge-will-rule-against-obama/
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/georgia-ballot-hearing-judge-wanted-to.html
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com

Here's the legal documents that kicked Hussein Soetoro's gay crack ass in court today:
http://libertylegalfoundation.org/certification-class-action/georgia-ballot-challenge/





After two hours of hearing from plaintiffs challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to run for the office of President in 2012, Judge Michael Malihi for the Office of State Administrative Hearings for the State of Georgia asked them to file briefs with him on their positions no later than Sunday, February 5.

The complaints originated on October 25 of last year with a lawsuit filed by the Liberty Legal Foundation (LLF) requesting an injunction against the Democratic Party that would prohibit the party from certifying that Obama is constitutionally qualified to run for office in 2012. Without that certification, says the foundation, Obama’s name would not appear on any ballot in the general election.



The case has nothing to do with Obama’s birth certificate or his place of birth or how many Social Security numbers he may have. As noted by LLF,

These issues are completely irrelevant to our argument. [Our] lawsuit simply points out that the Supreme Court has defined “natural-born citizen” as a person born to two parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the natural-born citizen’s birth. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen. Therefore, Obama can never be a natural-born citizen. His place of birth is irrelevant.

Article II, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution reads, in part: “No person except a natural born citizen ... shall be eligible to the office of President.” Since the only entity responsible for vetting a candidate’s qualifications to hold office is the political party that nominates the candidate, LLF chose to sue the Democratic Party and thus “we ... avoid taking on any state or federal government.” And Georgia has a state law that requires that “every candidate for federal office shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”



The Supreme Court’s 1875 Minor v. Happersett ruling stated:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.



A motion to quash a subpoena issued to Obama to attend the hearing was rejected by the judge, who did not find merit in arguments that the subpoena would require the President "to interrupt duties as President of the United States” and that the subpoena is, “on its face, unreasonable.” Specifically, Judge Malihi wrote: “Defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend [and] has failed to enlighten the Court with any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is ‘unreasonable or oppressive, or that [his] testimony ... [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary.’... Thus, the argument regarding service is without merit. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to quash is denied.”

The hearing was held anyway with lawyers presenting their cases against Obama, the Defendant. American Thinker writers Cindy Simpson and Alan Halbert noted:

Under Georgia law, the Secretary of State had properly deferred the ballot challenges to the OSAH [Office of State Administrative Hearings] for the court's opinion, and the determination of whether or not Obama's name will appear on the Georgia ballot ultimately rests with the Secretary.

The judge could end the matter with a ruling of a default judgment against the President. Or he could direct the Secretary to declare the President ineligible to run as a candidate for the presidency. Whatever the outcome, the American Thinker writers claim that by his ignoring the subpoena, “Obama has openly shown his disregard for the laws of that state.” This opinion was shared by Van Irion, the LLF attorney bringing the case against the president:

[He has] decided that he is above the Courts, the law, and the Constitution. He has just indicated ... that he is not subject to their authority. This is the true story from today.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/10689-obama-ignores-challenge-to-his-presidential-eligibility-in-georgia






A hearing to determine whether President Barack Obama is eligible to be on the primary ballot in Georgia took place on Thursday, with the defendants, Obama and his legal team, notably absent.

Georgia Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi subpoenaed the president last week after refusing to hear his legal team's challenge to the case, but neither Obama nor his lawyers ever planned on showing up.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/georgia-birther-hearing-obama_n_1236719.html





In his high school yearbook Hussein Obama Soetoro was listed in the official Pot Smokers Club

http://www.wctv.tv/news/headlines/President_Obamas_Georgia_Ballot_Hearing_138108643.html

First the good news. Yesterday–26 January–I watched live feed of an extraordinary event. The setting was a courtroom in Georgia and the presiding jurist was Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi. The case centered around and on Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to be placed on the Georgia ballot in the upcoming 2012 General Election(s). During the hearing, 3 attorneys–Orly Taitz, Van Irion and J. Mark Hatfield–presented their witnesses and individual ineligibility cases brought against Mr. Obama. Neither Obama nor his attorney Michael Jablonski were in attendance–both having opted to avoid and skip the proceedings altogether–and none of the court’s required production of Obama’s eligibility was provided.



Note: Jablonski seems to be perpetuating the long-standing myth that his client is above the law and now–by association–he appears to be operating under the delusion that he is, also. This brings up the interesting possibility of Atty. Jablonski–having provided no apparent legal reason for his non-attendance–being subject to revocation of his license to practice law in the State of Georgia. But, that’s a discussion for another time.

The evidence presented was strong and there appears to be, at least, a 50-50 chance of Judge Malihi and the State of Georgia ruling in plaintiffs’ favor. Judge Malihi will file a report, including his recommendations, with the Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp. When a decision is given by Judge Malihi, this will be the first time that any ruling on the merits of Obama’s eligibility will have been rendered. Note: After yesterday’s hearing there was some indication that Judge Malihi was planning to rule for the plaintiffs. But, I have been unable to confirm the report.

Now the extremely bad news for US citizens. First, on 19 January 2012, multiple videos were made of a shipment–via rail–of hundreds of Bradley tanks and related equipment moving from Northern California Southward. Then, a few days later, the US military, DHS and local LAPD leaders advised of military drills on the streets of Los Angeles. Note: Said streets, we are advised, will remain secret and no one will be allowed in or out while the ’drills’ are going on. If that’s true and civilians are cordoned off and allowed nether entry nor exit, Martial Law will already be in place.

The US military, Department of Homeland Security and LOCAL Police are conducting “urban warfare exercises” in recent and unprecedented “showings of force” under the now undeniable (by any intelligent beings) Dictator-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama. These military forces are inhabiting the streets and air of and over Los Angeles, Boston, Little Rock, Miami and Colorado amongst others. At a joint meeting between DHS, US Army Garrison-Fort Carson and IMCOM (Installation Management Command) in June 2011, the reason for the seminar was given as: “The focus of the two-day seminar was to evaluate installation performance and develop corrective action plans to improve and maintain emergency preparedness, prevent hostile acts, protect Soldiers, Family members and civilians, and improve response and recovery capabilities.” Hostile acts? If this true “emergency preparedness” to what hostile acts might they be referring? And what would cause these hostile acts? Certainly not the supposed ‘weather emergencies’ they are trying to push onto the American people. When did a tornado cause hostile acts from the American public?


Copkilling Communist Weatherman Underground terrorist bomber in CIA's Operation Northwoods Bill Ayres ghostwrote Obama's "autobiography" Dreams From My Father

Black Hawk helicopters were filmed flying around and over bank buildings in both Los Angeles and Miami. Military personnel are seen flying in position-ready mode to shoot at targets (that’s people) on the ground. Yet, these exercises are billed as ‘for some future foreign adventure’. Really? We are going to fly our Black Hawks over the banks of foreign countries, in order to protect them while, in actuality, hundreds of tanks (at least a Brigade) are being sent to our own cities? No. As Judge Judith Sheindlin (aka Judge Judy) often says: “If it doesn’t make sense, it isn’t true.”

Is Obama’s violent Martial Law almost upon us? It sure looks as if the positioning under the guise of “exercises” is underway and being implemented. And…what about those tanks that appear to have been sent to Los Angeles? Wonder where they’re being stored? So do I.

One thing is now very clear. Obama, his DHS, the US Military and local law enforcement (who by the way would not be deployed to foreign soil) appear to be working to take down US citizens in fairly short order. Soon they will come for any and all of our weapons. Hitler did it in Germany under the pretense of “It will help us protect you” in the 1930s. After that came the (at least) six-million Jews’ Holocaust. Although I have heard many times that US citizens won’t allow it, I have strong doubts. US citizens are already allowing their small children and the elderly to be sexually groped and prodded by perverse TSA employees–their own children, folks!

Will you be courageous enough to fight against the tyranny that has, already, almost totally encompassed us? Or, will you submit to the imposition of your complete slavery? The decision shortly will be forced upon us all.

“Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today’s world do not have.”–President Ronald Reagan



VIDEO: Military Helicopters Conduct Covert Exercises Over U.S. Bank Building:
at infowars.com

Military Exercises in Downtown LA:
at cfns.org

Joint military exercises in Boston, LA, Little Rock in past six months:
at deathby1000papercuts.com

HOMELAND SECURITY REAL EXERCISES IN MIAMI:
at youtube.com

Exercise tests homeland security in Colorado:
at csmng.com

BREAKING! MILITARY EQUIPMENT Filmed 1\19\12 near Santa Cruz, Southbound:
at youtube.com

Brigade: “A brigade is a major tactical military formation that is typically composed of four to five battalions, plus supporting elements depending on the era and nationality of a given army and could be perceived as an enlarged/reinforced regiment. Usually, a brigade is a sub-component of a division, a larger unit consisting of two or more brigades.”
at en.wikipedia.org

http://gulagbound.com/25516/obama-and-his-syndicate-some-good-obama-eligibility-hearing-and-some-chillingly-bad-news/comment-page-1/

http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=50877&m=879474#879474



Attorney General Eric Holder, the top “legal” voice of the US regime, argued to Northwestern University law students that the US Constitution is no limit to the regime dictatorially assassinating Americans. This follows regime arguments to seize and “disappear” any person in opposition to regime dictates as “terrorist supporters,” and extracting their confessions with controlled drowning (euphemistically “waterboarding”), found by all US and international courts as torture. The regime’s followers in Congress voted for legislation (2006 Military Commissions Act, 2012 NDAA) that these dictates are consistent with the US Constitution.




ATICLES OF IMPEACHMENT RESOLUTION 2012


H.CON.RES.107 -- Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high... (Introduced in House - IH)

HCON 107 IH

112th CONGRESS

2d Session
H. CON. RES. 107

Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 7, 2012

Mr. JONES submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress's exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress's exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.




Coup D’etat: Pentagon & Obama Declare Congress Ceremonial

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s testimony asserting that the United Nations and NATO have supreme authority over the actions of the United States military, words which effectively declare Congress a ceremonial relic, have prompted Congressman Walter Jones to introduce a resolution that re-affirms such behavior as an “impeachable high crime and misdemeanor” under the Constitution.

During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing yesterday, Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey brazenly admitted that their authority comes not from the U.S. Constitution, but that the United States is subservient to and takes its marching orders from the United Nations and NATO, international bodies over which the American people have no democratic influence.

Panetta was asked by Senator Jeff Sessions, “We spend our time worrying about the U.N., the Arab League, NATO and too little time, in my opinion, worrying about the elected representatives of the United States. As you go forward, will you consult with the United States Congress?”

The Defense Secretary responded “You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress.”

Despite Sessions’ repeated efforts to get Panetta to acknowledge that the United States Congress is supreme to the likes of NATO and the UN, Panetta exalted the power of international bodies over the US legislative branch.

“I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “I don’t believe it’s close to being correct. They provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”

In an effort to re-affirm the fact that “the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution,” Republican Congressman Walter Jones has introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives.




Pentagon Launches Desperate Damage Control Over Shocking Panetta Testimony

The Pentagon is engaging in damage control after shocking testimony yesterday by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta at a Senate Armed Services Committee congressional hearing during which it was confirmed that the U.S. government is now completely beholden to international power structures and that the legislative branch is a worthless relic.

During the hearing yesterday Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey brazenly admitted that their authority comes not from the U.S. Constitution, but that the United States is subservient to and takes its marching orders from the United Nations and NATO, international bodies over which the American people have no democratic influence.

Panetta was asked by Senator Jeff Sessions, “We spend our time worrying about the U.N., the Arab League, NATO and too little time, in my opinion, worrying about the elected representatives of the United States. As you go forward, will you consult with the United States Congress?”

The Defense Secretary responded “You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress.”

Despite Sessions’ repeated efforts to get Panetta to acknowledge that the United States Congress is supreme to the likes of NATO and the UN, Panetta exalted the power of international bodies over the US legislative branch.

“I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “I don’t believe it’s close to being correct. They provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”

Panetta’s assertion that he would seek “international permission” before ‘informing’ Congress about the actions of the US military provoked a firestorm of controversy, prompting the Pentagon to engage in damage control by claiming Panetta’s comments were misinterpreted.

“He was re-emphasizing the need for an international mandate. We are not ceding U.S. decision-making authority to some foreign body,” a defense official told CNN.

However, this is not the first time that the authority of international bodies has been framed as being superior to the US Congress and the Constitution.

In June last year, President Obama arrogantly expressed his hostility to the rule of law when he dismissed the need to get congressional authorization to commit the United States to a military intervention in Libya, churlishly dismissing criticism and remarking, “I don’t even have to get to the Constitutional question.”

Obama tried to legitimize his failure to obtain Congressional approval for military involvement by sending a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner in which he said the military assault was “authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council.”

Panetta’s testimony that the US looks to obtain “international permission” before it acts, allied with Obama citing the UN as the supreme authority while trashing the power of Congress, prove that the United States has ceded control over its own affairs to unelected international bureaucrats, just as the countries of the European Union have done likewise.

Saturday, January 14, 2012

TN law to legalize right turns



NMA Tennessee Alert: Support Right-Turn-On-Red Bill

National Motorists Association

Dear Tennessee Member,

The NMA urges Tennessee members to support legislation that would allow right-turns-on-red at all intersections without coming to a full stop. Introduced by Rep. Ryan A. Haynes, House Bill 64 also has the support of Sen. Stacey Campfield.

The bill comes on the heels of legislation passed last year (Public Act 425) that essentially banned camera tickets for right-turn-on-red violations. Camera companies ATS and Reflex reacted quickly with lawsuits claiming the law infringes on their contracts with various Tennessee municipalities.

Camera vendors rely on right-turn-on red citations for the bulk of their revenues. HB 64 would make it more difficult to bring back right-on-red citations, further eroding company profits.

Studies have shown that right-turns-on-red have very little impact on driver safety, in contrast to red-light cameras, which invariably put revenue generation ahead of public safety. (Learn more about the problems with red-light cameras.)

Contact your House and Senate members and tell them to stand up for motorists’ rights in Tennessee by supporting HB 64.

John Bowman
National Motorists Association




HOUSE BILL 64

By Haynes

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 55, Chapter 8, relative to right turns on red signals.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:

SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 55-8-110(a)(3)(A), is amended by
deleting the language:

"A right turn on a red signal shall be permitted at all intersections within the state; provided, that the prospective turning car shall come to a full and complete stop before turning and that the turning car shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and cross traffic traveling in accordance with their traffic signal; provided, further, such turn will not endanger other traffic lawfully using the intersection."

and by substituting instead the following language:

"A right turn on a red signal shall be permitted at all intersections within the state; provided, that the prospective turning car shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and cross traffic traveling in accordance with their traffic signal; provided, further, the turn will not endanger other traffic lawfully using the intersection."

SECTION 2. This act shall take effect July 1, 2011, the public welfare requiring it.

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Iowa Caucus Results 2012





When Ron Paul was leading, GOP decided to COUNT THE VOTES IN A SECRET LOCATION OUT OF STATE. Because Anonymous was going to hack the PAPER ballots.



ABSENTEE BALLOTS ARE NEVER COUNTED BEFORE A WINNER IS ANNOUNCED.

NO IDENTIFICATION REQUIRED to vote in the Iowa caucus.

The Iowa Election Commission website results crashed last night.

Ron Paul Doubles Vote Tally, Captures EQUAL NUMBER OF DELEGATES As Romney & Santorum in Iowa -- 7 total
Romney got less votes than 2008, Paul doubled his # votes in 2008
Santorum nephew says Santorum is “another big-government politician who supports the status quo”
http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-doubles-vote-tally-captures-equal-number-of-delegates-as-romney-santorum/

Public Policy Polling notes Santorum at only 10% during Dec. 26-27. So how did jew Alen "I Helped Assassinate JFK" S.P.E.C.T.E.R.S buddy rise so quickly?

2012 President: Iowa Republican Caucus

Ron Paul 24%

Mitt Romney 20%

Newt Gingrich 13%

Michele Bachmann 11%

Rick Perry 10%

Rick Santorum 10%

Jon Huntsman at 4%

Buddy Roemer at 2%

Iowa looks like a 2 person race between Paul and Romney as the campaign enters its final week.


Ron Paul blasts back at S.P.E.C.T.E.R.S Santorum after being called ‘disgusting’

2012 President: Iowa Republican Caucus

24% Romney

22% Paul

15% Santorum

12% Gingrich

11% Perry

7% Bachmann

2% Huntsman

Des Moines Register 12/27-30


Ron Paul was leading by double digits in most polls last night, WITH 58% ON THE NBC POLL, except for Microsoft NBC General Electric (the nice folks who build nuclear bombs and nuked Fukushima and genocided 15,000 American babies with the radioactive fallout, getting rich off Obama's 7 wars).

Most states use FOREIGN PRIVATE MILITARY CONTRACTORS TO COUNT ELECTRONIC VOTES.

Since no Democrat candidate will run against Dictator Hussein Obama Sotoro, Democrats are flooding the Iowa GOP primary and will flood all other primaries to vote against the only candidate who can beat Obama, Goldman Sachs and the private foreign "Federal" Reserve Bank -- Ron Paul.

Never mind that NO VOTES ARE COUNTED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN ANY PRESIDENTIAL RACE and are NEVER BASED ON ACTUAL VOTES.




Could Typo Rewrite Caucus History? Caucus Vote Counter Says Romney Mistakenly Given 20 Votes (after "winning" by 8 votes)

KCCI TV Channel 8
January 5, 2012

DES MOINES, Iowa -- Caucus night was chaotic in many places, with hundreds of voters, candidates showing up and the throngs of media who followed. The world's eyes were on Iowa. But in the quiet town of Moulton, Appanoose County, a caucus of 53 people may just blow up the results.

Edward True, 28, of Moulton, said he helped count the votes and jotted the results down on a piece of paper to post to his Facebook page. He said when he checked to make sure the Republican Party of Iowa got the count right, he said he was shocked to find they hadn't.

"When Mitt Romney won Iowa by eight votes and I've got a 20-vote discrepancy here, that right there says Rick Santorum won Iowa," True said. "Not Mitt Romney."

True said at his 53-person caucus at the Garrett Memorial Library, Romney received two votes. According to the Iowa Republican Party's website, True's precinct cast 22 votes for Romney.

"This is huge," True said. "It essentially changes who won."

A spokeswoman with the Iowa Republican Party said True is not a precinct captain and he's not a county chairperson so he has no business talking about election results. She also said the party would not be giving interviews about possible discrepancies until the caucus vote is certified.

KCCI political analyst Dennis Goldford said even if the caucus results are wrong, it's not the end of the world.

"This will make Iowa look a little foolish in the eyes of the rest of the country, which already questions the seriousness of the caucuses," Goldford said. But in terms of Santorum's results here, the Caucuses have made him a player in presidential politics and if he should nudge ahead of Gov. Romney for the final certified result that's really not going to make any significant difference at this point."

True -- who said he's a Ron Paul supporter -- hopes it was a simple mistake.

"I imagine it's a good possibility that somebody instead of hitting 2 might have hit 22 by accident," True said. "I hope so."

But he said he won't stop talking about it until the state -- by his count -- gets the numbers right.

"Numbers that I personally witnessed being counted and assisted in counting and am certain are right," he said.

Iowa Republican Party Chairman Matt Strawn said late Thursday that the party headquarters spoke with Appanoose County Republican officials and they do not have any reason to believe the final, certified results of the county will change the outcome of Tuesday's vote.

Reached a short time later, True said he is absolutely certain his numbers are correct and he stands by his statement. True said he confirmed his numbers with his precinct captain and his county party chairman.

True reiterated Thursday night that he is 100-percent certain that his figures from that night were correct. He said he has checked with his precinct chairman and the GOP county chairman and they confirmed his numbers.

Affidavit from Edward L. True
http://www.watchthevote2012.com/AffidavitTrue.htm

Appanoose County Republican Party Chair Backs True

Appanoose County Republican Chairman Lyle Brinegar said Friday that his records indicate Romney did indeed only receive 2 votes in True's precinct. He told KCCI the county's paperwork is in order and he's confident the mistake will be corrected before the vote is certified.

Caucus Chair Backs True

Precinct caucus chair, Tony Seibert also said yes, Mitt Romney only received two votes in his precinct, not the 22 the GOP is reporting.

Seibert said he's willing to wait for the certified results to see if the error is corrected.

"Everybody's getting so upset over this. Let's wait until all the vote totals are in," said Seibert.

Seibert said he doesn't want to speculate, but said it's possible it was just a typo that will soon be corrected.

"That's the great thing about America," Seibert said. "We're allowed to make reasonable mistakes."

Friday Update

KCCI News spoke to True in Moulton on Friday. True said the media attention that has arisen from his story with KCCI is, "blowing my mind."

True said he has received calls from Fox News and Anderson Cooper's show. He said he searched the web and was surprised to find international coverage of what he had to say.

True stands by the numbers he wrote down that night, and with the help of Watch The Vote 2012, he's finding other precincts that also experienced discrepancies.

True said he heard what Rick Santorum said the GOP told him about another error in Romney's favor canceling out his error.

"If there are two errors, how many more are out there?"

BTW Ron Paul won with 7 delegates in Iowa. Nobody got more delegates than Ron Paul. That means Ron Paul WON. Funny how the news corps forget to mention that. Funny how Dictator Hussein Obama Soetoro won't send DOJ and FBI to investigate that.



PRIVATE SECRET SOCIETY DECIDES ALL NATIONAL ELECTION VOTES IN SECRET

The Voter News Service was a consortium whose mission was to provide results for United States presidential elections, so that individual organizations and networks would not have to do exit polling and vote tallying in parallel. A possibly unwritten secondary mission of the Voter News Service was to provide election results as quickly as possible on election night—a point which came to haunt the VNS in the 2000 presidential election.

The VNS received intense criticism for its 'flip-flop' calling of the state of Florida in that election[citation needed]. During the course of the evening, it first called the closely contested state of Florida for Al Gore, then George W. Bush, and then as 'too close to call'. Critics argued that the state should never have been called until the state's fate was clear. The Voter News Service also received specific criticism for calling the state of Florida for Al Gore before the polls closed in the Florida panhandle, which was located in the Central Time Zone and heavily Republican. In addition, criticism also came because of the call for Bush which occurred before precincts in Broward, Palm Beach Volusia, and Miami-Dade Counties, all democratic, reported their results to the state which occurred after the networks called the state for Bush well after 2 AM eastern standard time.

Disasters were almost comical. Many of the more than 30,000 temporary workers collecting exit-poll information were disconnected from VNS' new voice-recognition system before they could finish inputting data over the phone. Some poll workers were unable to access the system at all. Live operators weren't always a help, as the phone system periodically crashed under the crush of callers dialing in.

Using computers was not much of an alternative. News organizations and other VNS subscribers were repeatedly instructed to log off their machines, so the new servers running BEA Systems' WebLogic application server could be rebooted.

When users finally were able to access the system, they quickly discovered they were being presented with incomplete and inaccurate information. For instance, early exit-polling data indicated that Erskine Bowles was leading Elizabeth Dole in the North Carolina senatorial race. As the day progressed and more exit-poll data was added, that margin grew.

However, when the actual votes were tallied, Dole won the election by almost 200,000 votes, a convincing victory.

"It was a joke," one political analyst at a major television network told Baseline. "It became obvious to everyone that this wasn't going to work. There wasn't enough testing. There was not enough collaboration between the networks and the IT people. And, worse, there was nothing we could do about it. You can't postpone an election."

Network executives quickly concluded they would not use the bulk of the data they were able to collect, particularly the exit-polling information. Projecting winners and losers in various races would take several hours longer than in the past.

Also, the networks would be unable to give the type of detailed explanations as to why voters voted the way they did this time around. For example, according to TV network analysts working the election, the networks wouldn't be able to tell viewers why particular demographic groups voted for specific candidates nor the issues that they considered most or least important when voting.

As a result of their election night forecasts, the television networks and their Voter News Service (VNS) have more than just egg on their faces.

They may also have some legal trouble. The American Antitrust Institute in Washington, D.C. is urging the Justice Department to split up the VNS following an election night of botched calls.

The VNS was formed by ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox and the Associated Press in 1990 in an effort to save millions of dollars in exit polling costs. But critics say the New York company, which operates as a limited liability corporation for its funding members, has a virtual monopoly on election-night polling.

In 2002, the VNS intended to make calls in the November U.S. Congressional and Senate elections. It attempted to use a computer designed for VNS by an outside contractor to do this. A system failure occurred in this computer on election night, making quick delivery of data impossible. In fact, collecting and delivering the data took ten months.

In January 2003, the Voter News Service was disbanded largely because of failures in 2000 and 2002. Murray Edelman, VNS editorial director, criticized the decision as making the VNS a scapegoat.

Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International conducted exit polls in each state and nationally for the National Election Pool (ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC). The polls should be referred to as a National Election Pool (or NEP) Exit Poll, conducted by Edison/Mitofsky. All questionnaires were prepared by NEP. The National exit poll was conducted at a sample of 250 polling places among 11719 Election
Day voters representative of the United States.

In the 2004 presidential election, a new organization called National Election Pool was set up by the same organizations, utilizing consultants Edison/Mitofsky for exit polling and Associated Press for official returns. However, the NEP had controversies of its own for 2004 when it released exit polling data early that was significantly different than the final results.

The organizers of the pool insist that the purpose of their quick collection of exit poll data is not to determine if an election is flawed, but rather to project winners of races. Despite past problems, they note that none of their members has incorrectly called a winner since the current system was put in place. [1] However, to avoid the premature leaking of data, collection is now done in a "Quarantine Room" at an undisclosed location in New York. All participants are stripped of outside communications devices until it's time for information to be released officially.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_News_Service

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Election_Pool

http://www.baselinemag.com/c/a/Business-Intelligence/Voter-News-Service-What-Went-Wrong/

http://www.forbes.com/2000/11/29/1129vns.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/methods.pdf




As for Iowa, Mormon Mitt "Sex-Addict Illegal Alien From Outer Space" Romney allegedly won by EIGHT VOTES OUT OF 100,000 TOTAL VOTES, with ALL VOTES MISSING FROM TWO COUNTIES.
http://www.dailypaul.com



Mitt Romney announces victory in Iowa, pledges to have sex in outer space with as many sexy space aliens as possible:







CNN Jew Pulls the Plug on Live Feed of Soldier Talking About Voting for Ron Paul:



Republican Insider: GOP Establishment Planning To Subvert Iowa to Prevent Ron Paul Win:




Just a heartbeat away...Obama/Clinton 2012: Who's yo pimp daddy biatch?

Monday, January 2, 2012

Apollo Moonwalk Chillout



Click for free MP3 download

Ambient thrills and chills from the surface of the moon....wherever that may be.

Playlist:

Bassic: Tranquility Bass
Vangelis: Bladerunner Blues
Cardamar: Nebra Skydisk mix
Apollo 11: Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, Michael Collins, Mission Control
Apollo 16
Apollo 17
Space Shuttle Columbia: Final Voyage
Astronauts Gone Wild: Bart Sibrel

Hollywood Award-Winning Apolloscam Archive by Pirate News