Voter Fraud: Obama Won 108% of Registered Voters in Ohio County

Let’s face it. Obama won the election. Just like Putin and Ahmadinejad did theirs. The only difference is that unlike Iranians and Russians, Americans won’t be gathering in the streets to protest their disenfranchisement at the hands of the corrupt Democratic Party machine.

First, he received over 99% of the vote in districts where GOP inspectors were illegally removed. Next, he won 100% of the vote in 21 districts in Cleveland. Well, he’s gotten another lucky break!

Mr. Obama won Wood County in Ohio this year. That’s right, Mr. Obama won the majority of Wood County’s 108% of registered voters. That’s not a typo.

In 2012, 106,258 people in Wood County are registered to vote out of an eligible 98,213.

Post Continues on

Posted in 2012 Election, Ethics, Politics Tagged with: ,
519 comments on “Voter Fraud: Obama Won 108% of Registered Voters in Ohio County
  1. The biggest voter fraud was having Obama on the Democrat Ticket in the first place. He never proved he was elible to be President 4 years ago and 4 years later, he has still to prove he is eligible to be our President.

    I fully expected at least one Secretary of State to disallow his candidacy in their State. We have 50 treasonous Secretary of States.

    We have a treasonous Supreme Court who never weighed in. What do we pay those guys for? They didn’t even decide if States can allow a photo ID when they validate a voter?

    We have a treasonous House of Representatives who never impeached.

    And if impeached, we would have had a treasonous Senate who voted not to convict on the

    There can be no doubt that we are now under tyranny.

    • Charles says:

      AMEN Brother !!!!

    • Robalou01 says:

      I agree. What do we do about it??

      • Well, if we had a military who honored their oath to protect and defend the Constitution…

        • Dissenter says:

          …they would have arrested George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney for crimes against humanity.

        • Crimes against Humanity, as we know it, is a United Nations crime, not a Constitutional crime. Our military certainly would not have arrested Bush for violating a UN law. If they had, that would have been a dead giveaway that we were now a vessel of the UN, with no sovereignty of our own.
          However, I will conceed that they could have arrested him for taking our military into a war without a Congressional and hence Constitutional Declaration of War.
          AND at the very least, our military should have refused to fight King George’s war, remembering the legacy of NOT REALLY fighting Communism in Korea and Vietnam (and not at all in Cuba); hence, knowing full well that Muslim extremists would become even more emboldened even after the sacred loss of so many good soldiers.

        • Dissenter says:

          It is a federal crime (under 18 USC 2340A, if memory serves). Part of signing a treaty — one we basically dictated, btw — is enacting conforming laws. Enactment of binding treaties is a proper exercise of sovereignty, not an abandonment of it. Remember that any treaty can be revoked by a sovereign state, such as Iraq, which has a legal right to declare that it is no longer bound by the Non-Proliferation Treaty that its government never signed. Sovereignty works both ways.

        • Yes, I am well aware that UN law is being rubber stamped by our treasonous Congress.
          The part of my message you missed is in my saying that without the Progressive’s 17th Amendment, a State-ran Senate would never had agreed to the UN treaties in the first place.

        • Dissenter says:

          I’m pretty sure we would have, as it came out of the law we used to prosecute Hitler’s henchmen.

        • Hitler and the men who served him were not citizens of the United States.
          They were foreign defeated enemies of our country and would have been tried under our military justice system.
          In fact, they were tried in a quasi-legal multi-national, kangaroo court, where our American rules of justice were not used.
          Just the kind of laws you are showing you love.

        • Dissenter says:

          I wouldn’t argue with that take, as the Nuremberg Trials did lack elements of criminal procedure in trials that were questionable at best. Tu quoque evidence (e.g., the Allied bombing of Dresden as a crime against humanity) was not admissible, for instance. We justified our prosecutions under the rubric of natural law, later codifying it in the Covenant Against Torture. This is, for most people, a bit of “inside baseball,” but we later invoked it to prosecute Saddam, Milosevic, and others. You can’t have it both ways and claim to be acting within the law….

        • I am still trying to figure out what you are saying, but does not matter as international law is not what we are talking about.

        • Dissenter says:

          It is, but the concept may be too subtle and foreign.

        • Janet says:


      • In a less dramatic action than I just proposed (but also a much longer term solution), if we can presume that the State governments are closer to the people and rewinnable with a little pressure from us, we can have our State legislatures present their own candidates for U.S. Senate and run a massive public relations campaign educating the public about the need for the States to provide a Checks and Balances on the power of the Fed. These State Senators will block UN treaties, they will block federal-power-grabbing Federal Court justices, they will not create laws to make the States subservient slaves to an overwhelmingly powerful Fed. And most importantly, they will vote to repeal the 17th Amendment, which created this mess in the first place.

        How did the 17th Amendment create this mess?

        Had the US Senate been in the hands of the States all this time,

        A) There would have been a Senate willing to convict on the impeach of Obama.
        B) There would have been a Senate who had insured we had a Supreme Court willing to docket the case against Obama
        C) There would have been a Senate who would have opened a Congressional RICO investigation into the actions of the national party calling themselves the Democrat Party
        D) There would have been a Senate who would have opened a Congressional RICO investigation into the monopoly power of a Judeo-Media elite who strangles free speech and the free flow of information in a free press in this country in violation of the 1st Amendment.
        E) There would have been a Senate in place who would have scared the living daylights out of anyone to even attemptted such a tyranical act in the first place.

        • WellNowDear says:

          Finally someone with solutions and good sense. Solutions is what we need not, sounding off with a bunch of hot-headed comments.

        • KurtofLA says:

          I agree, but if we hang just one turd they would pay attention. Freedom is not free and votes do not count. Just ask Stalin.

        • WellNowDear says:

          That is true Kurt but, killing and violence are bad things. That method will not gain us anything. It will only hurt.

        • dextermassolettisr says:

          WellNowDear, if killing and violence are so bad, why do we tolerate it from our abusers?? to let the snake bite you is not called righteousness, tolerance or understading — it is called stupid.

        • lainky says:

          IT HELPED obama he MURDERED four Americans

        • bodica says:

          At least…

        • Gary Lampkin says:

          Don’t forget the border guard.

        • Grey Wolf says:

          wait did i just hear you say Killing and violence are bad things? just how do you think this country was founded and how do you think that freedom was gained….you might want to rethink your thinking if you think getting out of this one will be less than before..

        • dhmill says:

          Is that so? Check the record. Killing and violence, burning and destroying got the Negros a racist black caucus and no one says boo. So now we have a racist group right there in Congress. Violence and all that goes with it will not gain us anything?
          A newspaper publishes a simple cartoon and the Islamics IMMEDIATELY resort to violence world wide. And now the Islamics control what every newspaper in the world publishes. The Negros gained, the Islamics gained why would not the good people gain?
          Perhaps a brick thrown through the window of a newspaper that refuses to publish the truth would bump someone on the head and wake them up.

        • dhmill says:

          I hear and understand what you are saying. However, the problem is that we have Obamam NOW! Not years from now as we wait for elections to vote back our rights.
          You know why no one takes action now? It’s because they are too afraid that they may lose their new boat or whatever they prize.
          Do you remember Nixon? He resigned the Presidency at only the hint of impreachment. While Obamam thumbs his nose at us Americans.
          We have NO ONE in office now that has any backbone. NO ONE!

        • Dissenter says:

          While I agree that the 17th Amendment was a disaster, it is the law of the land. Perhaps you would be willing to jettison the Electoral College?

        • If you would agree that the 17th Amendment gutted the intent and functioning of the Constitution in the vertical Checks and Balances between the States power and the power of the Federal government, then how in the world could you agree that removing the States entirely from running the elections would make us better off?
          Instead of your State running the election, validating the results, and insuring that your State’s votes get counted in Washington, you would rather have Eric Holder run the election?

        • Dissenter says:

          They have already shown that they are incapable of doing it when left to their own devices — the same state of affairs that occasioned the Civil War Amendments.

          They can still run elections, but under federal rules that make it impossible for even them to screw it up. Providing recourse to federal courts would be a good way to bypass corrupt state courts and secretaries of state.

        • The Civil War Amendments were passed while the South was still militarily occupied and administered by the North, so that is not normally the case in passing Amendments.
          Federal rules? You mean like using our Voting Right Acts against the States to tell them that they cannot require someone to provide a photo ID to prove they are eligible to vote. Is that the kind of federal rules you want to insure your idea of a fair election?
          State court corruption? So State courts are corrupt but the Federal Supreme Court who said the killing of a baby is Constitutional is not corrupt? I will take State corruption ovber Federal corruption ANY DAY. If I get fed up with my State being corrupt, I can move to another State. And marching in front of my State Capitol is much easier than traveling across the country to march in front of my Federal Capitol.
          Go peddle your Jewish theories elsewhere. You are the reason why everything is so screwed up.

        • Dissenter says:

          Have you ever read the Congressional Globe debate? The CWAs were enacted to protect Negroes and their Republican allies; read the dissent in Pierson v. Ray, as it is more accessible than the Globe.

          Pursuant to the CWAs, neither Congress nor the States can enact laws which have the effect of invidious discrimination. That has been the law for a very long time, and the law was enhanced to redress discrimination by various States.

          Actually, the Constitution says that abortion is not murder, inasmuch as the fetus has not attained “personhood,” as it was defined at the time that the original Bill of Rights was enacted. Unlike Scalia (who merely plays one on TV), I am an originalist, and cannot find a legitimate legal mechanism for changing the fetus’ current status. To overturn Roe would be one of the most flagrant acts of judicial activism we would ever see in our lifetimes — regardless of how you feel about the morality of abortion.

          And now, you are accusing me of being Jewish? Oy vey!!! And you, no doubt, belong to Stormfront….

        • The Civil War Amendments were the first of many to come which gave the Federal government power over the States which the original Constitution did not confer in either fact or in intent.

          The original Constitution in fact condoned slavery in the fact that it takes account of slavery in apportioning representation. This was our original sin, no doubt, but to say that the federal government was the solution to the sin just traded one sin for another.

        • We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

          The right to life and liberty of our posterity is explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution by us the People who proposed the Constitution.

          We did not give a federal judge the right to declare who lives and who dies. Even that power is given only to a jury of our peers.

        • Dissenter says:

          We let the antecedent common law define what a person is, as Madison and several of his peers have stated. Ever read Elliot’s?

          It might surprise you to know that in certain instances, we did invest the civil jury with power to interpret the Constitution (Georgia v. Brailsford, if memory serves). However, when it comes to a pure declaration of what the law is, that power did and has always rested with the judges, even in England. You can disagree, but know that you are on the wrong side of history on this one.

        • You realize we were quite upset with a few of those English laws and declared war over them, then made our own?

          True, we then decided that the common law would be the starting foundation of all law in this country, even to this day. State legislatures can and do however enhance or repeal sections of the common law, but if that law is itself repealed, the common law does automatically return.

          Do you care to divulge what the common law says about a woman with child?

          Do you care to tell us what all 50 State legislatures, in enhancing the common law, had to say about abortion at the time the Supreme Court declared abortion legal?

          They said that abortion was illegal. It was against the law. It was against the common law. It was against the common law enhanced by the law of State legislatures.

          And the Supreme Court made new law, by saying that the law now allows abortion. That the Constitution has always allowed abortion.

          As for judges running our country, the existance of Amendments 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, or fully half of all the Bill of Rights, prove an American people deathly afraid of justice by government judges.

          Juries are to judge both the fact as well as the law. And strangely, you know jury nullification is true historically when you cite Georgia v Brailsford, so I don’t understand why you are objecting so much.

        • Dissenter says:

          You don’t know your history. We were upset with the administration of those laws (e.g., abolition of the trial by jury), but embraced the common law. Blackstone was a best-seller.

          You don’t understand the process. Not all cases were decided by a jury, but in those cases where they were, the jury was supreme. The elegance of this system was touted by Hamilton in The Federalist:

          “The excellence of the trial by jury in civil cases appears to depend on circumstances foreign to the preservation of liberty. The strongest argument in its favor is, that it is a security against corruption. … As matters now stand, it would be necessary to corrupt both court and jury; for where the jury have gone evidently wrong, the court will generally grant a new trial, and it would be in most cases of little use to practice upon the jury, unless the court could be likewise gained.”

          The Federalist No. 83, 465-66 (Alexander Hamilton) (I. Kramnick ed. 1987). Barrister Sir John Hawles, Solicitor-General to King William III, adds:

          “Tho’ judges are more likely to be able than jurymen, yet jurymen are more likely to be more honest than judges; especially in all cases where the power of the prerogative, or the rights of the people, are in dispute. Our rights, therefore, both as individuals, and as a people, are more likely to be secure while juries follow the result of their own opinion; for less danger will arise from the mistakes of jurymen, than from the corruption of judges.”

          John Hawles, The Englishman’s Right: A Dialogue Between a Barrister At Law and a Juryman 71-2 & fn. (1680) (reprinted 1844).

          That having been said, I am quite familiar with the English common law and how it evolved. A statutory provision is presumed constitutional unless and until it is successfully challenged, which is why it could take 200 years for a practice to be successfully challenged without violating accepted jurisprudential principles. I don’t have to fight the law or the facts to reach my conclusion wrt abortion rights.

        • I understand my history well enough. We were indeed upset with the laws.

          “No Taxation without Representation” was a huge slogan of the day. The Stamp Act was a tax imposed without our representation in the making of the tax law. England wanted the colonies to help pay for the military expense of the French and Indian Wars, while the colonists believed they had more than paid for the war with their blood, along with their treasure.

          The abuse of the common law only came as we slid into rebellion against these unfair and unequal laws upon the colonists and may I say, helped the rebellion along.

        • Dissenter says:

          I’m going by the DoI, which only mentions taxation in passing. It is a common pattern in revolutions, where the master imposes harsher laws to quash dissent, thereby exacerbating the dissent.

        • Dissenter says:

          Declaration of Independence.

        • Kirby says:

          Law, law, law. You two haven’t noticed that the “law” has been dumped on the ash heap. Quibble all the fine points you wish, you are wasting time over something that the Obama sewage heap has buried.

        • Dissenter says:

          It’s not like the Bush regime paid much attention to the rule of law either.

        • Grey Wolf says:

          ok then what does history tell you of who was here first and what happened those people……wasn’t it this same government of people that forced them to live in camps called “Native Territory “…so you think if it did that to my people back then it cant be done to you now….ROFL

        • Absolutely, it is being done to both you and me now.

        • bodica says:

          Hamilton was a traitor who opened the back door to the european based kazakhstani banksters and fronted for them in the Bank of NY – in recent years taken down from within by russian/east european gangsters. Now as for Roe v Wade, that was based on perjurious testimony by a woman who regrets it every moment of her life. Dr. Bernard Nathanson – the ‘doctors are businessmen’ abortion leader – lived a life of intense regret and reparation . Of course he couldn’t put those ‘little arms and legs’ back together again to bring the little PERSONS back to life. ‘It’s hard to deny you’re taking human life when you’re THROWING LITTLE ARMS AND LEGS INTO A BUCKET.’ (Dr. Nathanson, reformed baby murderer) Have a good day, dissenter, and don’t give me any crud about ‘brain waves.’ Just because we don’t have instruments sensitive enough to record those brain waves at the moment of conception doesn’t mean they arent’ there. Ask any grandparent – duh!

        • Dissenter says:

          Hamilton could have had a past as checkered as Mitt Romney’s, but it takes nothing away from his knowledge of economics.

          As for Roe, I met Sarah Weddington at a conference, and had the pleasure of speaking with her at some length. She could have picked any woman as lead plaintiff; the case would have gone to court with or without Norma McCorvey. I have also enjoyed the pleasure of conversing with Dr. Warren Hern (late-term abortion provider in Colorado) and his nemeses, Ken and Jo Scott. The women who come to Dr. Hern actually wanted to have a child, but complications often made that impractical and even life-threatening. He’s helping women by trying to mitigate the damage. Ken and Jo are religious extremists; I have tried to protect their right to speak, even though I disagree with their message. Everyone goes into this sad but often essential procedure thoughtfully — unlike the brain-dead Christian Talibani.

          When your selfish and hopelessly sadistic god comes correct and makes sure that every fetus is both wanted and healthy, get back to me. Until then, you should practice Matt. 7:1-2. Only the burro knows the weight of his load….

        • bodica says:

          How stupid are you to take the word of a murderer that he was ‘helping women.’ I’ve treated Post Abortion Syndrome and the infertility that follows ‘helpful’ procedures like that sick, vicious child murderer Hern engages in. God bless Ken and Jo Scott.
          Only a sadist could condone abortion; only the most vicious, black souled pervert could condone late term abortion, or willingly stay in the same room with Hern.
          God forgive you for your lies and blasphemies. As I said before – get help, ASAP.

        • God bless you bodica! I cast way too many pearls of my wisdom onto this swine.

        • Madonna Lee says:

          Let’s talk when it’s your child and your life on the line. I’ve been there and I have no regrets about my decision. If we put as much effort into preventing unwanted pregnancy as we have in fighting a law of the land that will not be changed significantly then we will be helping children. I refuse to have our country be Romania.

        • Preventing unwanted pregnancy often involves women like you to stop opening your legs.

          You have a better way? Because, I KNOW you would not agree that young ladies be escorted at all times while in the presence of another young man. I KNOW you are not talking about imprisoning men for rape, since we are already imprisoning men for sending a woman a dozen red roses.

          If we were to “put as much effort into preventing pregnancy, as we have fighting abortion”, then we would put you into a convent. Problem solved.

        • Madonna Lee says:

          I agree. I had a late term abortion. My child, yes that’s right, MY child was anencenphalic coupled with acute acrania and it was our choice. My husband and I. We had to weigh the possibilities of our child suffering and the calcification which could have rendered my uterus infertile. Not the doctors. Not the government. And certainly not the religious right. It was a heartwrenching, PRIVATE decision. I did like being told we had to wait another 48 hours because of some atbitrary, unduly burdensome court case in PA at the time.

        • Dissenter says:

          I share your grief, and wish you peace. No one wants to have to make that decision.

          The person who sold me on this was Rick Santorum, who essentially had the same decision to make. He and his wife chose to take the additional risk of bearing the child, but that was their choice to make.

          If any of you Bible-bleaters want to force another Madonna Lee to assume the greater risk of death that carrying the fetus to term and take the choice away from her, I will be delighted to shove that Bible so far up your tail that you start spouting the Proverbs.

        • You are not going to like this one bit, but honestly requires it of me.

          I know you don’t really have deeply held religious beliefs, but if you actually believed in God and if you actually believed in God’s people having souls, then your life is not worth the taking of another life. The absolute is that we do not take innocent life in neither our religion nor in our society. And our society is not 9 pompous Supreme Court justices who took justice in their own arms.

          Now, if I am right about you, you are a deeply committed enviromnentalist who believes deeply in the protection of Mother Nature. In your own belief system then, what you did was unnatural and while it did cause your survival, it will ultimately not insure the survival of the species. If you are unable to convieve a viable offspring then nature says you should die. Our species needs to insure that people like you do not succeed in violating the laws of nature.

        • Grey Wolf says:

          ok then explain me this who is “We the People”…its not my people…natives never asked anyone to come here you explain to me how was this land given to the “People of the United States”? i guess you think we handed it to them just for coming over here?

        • You are not looking at your persecution in deep enough detail. Your ancestors were cast out of the Old World 20,000 years ago due to overpopulation and a perceived difference making your people outcasts. They wandered into America to make America their own. Now the Old World has come to take even that from you.

          I grew up in Oklahoma and believe that We the People, did not inlude native peoples at the time of the Declaration of Independance, but has come to include them now.

          White Christian people, recently, have shown themselves to be the most inclusive people alive.

          Jews are certainly not inclusive.

          China is all Chinese and India is all Indian but we welcome them with open arms into our country.

          Muslims are certainly not inclusive, but again, we have welcomed them as one of our own.

          But this tolerance and inclusiveness has been used as a weapon against us. The melting pot ideal of old is now reviled and replaced with the multi-culturalism mess we have today.

          I am like you. I am not happy.

        • Madonna Lee says:

          This is historically inaccurate and your comments about inclusiveness, or actaully lack thereof, of other religions is untrue and bigoted. You give us Christians a bad name when you state such things. Do unto others. Love thy neighbor. And the greatest of these is love.

        • What are you talking about? Your statement is a confused mess.

          You state that Christians should Love they neighbor and have love. But is that not what I said? In fact, I am pretty sure that I said Christians have given so much “love thy neighbor” that we have invited our neighbors from all over the world to move into our home! We no longer have neighbors anymore, now they are our family members.

          You state that I give Christians a bad name to say other religions are not inclusive. But isn’t love of neighbor what you are saying is a characteristic of Christians — and therefore, is NOT a characterisitc of other religions?

          I would love to know your interpretation of historical accuracy.

          In fact, Jews are bigoted. They only look out for other Jews. Muslims are bigoted. They only look out for other Muslims.

          Do I need to show you what America and Christians donate to the rest of the world compared to what Jews to or compared to what Muslims do?

        • Your argument is just weak. The argument you give about personhood could be applied to anyone who is on a machine that helps to sustain life. The advance in technology indicates otherwise with regard to the unborn child whom I will not call a fetus as it gives those who find it uncomfortable to consider what they are killing a child some sort of solace. By the way, stop with the term Jew, it actually refers to men of the tribe of Judah(Christ’s line, the other being the tribe of Levi). The Kennites are the sons of Cain, that is who you are really referring to. Research is a good thing.

        • Dissenter says:

          “Personhood” is defined by the law as established in 1791; whether you or I might agree or disagree is, legally speaking, beside the point.

          I’m not the one who first used “Jewish”; take it up with Xian Solution. But if you are going to argue from the Bible, you have to reconcile your position with the Jewish tradition that holds that life begins at birth, as the soul is infused into the body at the first breath. And then, there is Matt. 7:12 and 1 Cor. 6:12. You rabid Talibani might want to impose a theocracy on us, but that is a plain violation of your own religion.

          I look at it from a broader perspective, recognizing that the State has no legitimate interest in whether a particular woman carries a given pregnancy to term, as judged through the lens of its stated charter. The people retain all rights not ceded to the government, and reproductive decisions are not logically ceded to the government. You can always rewrite our charter of government if you have the votes (and you don’t), but the charter we have is the one we must live with.

          I don’t have a dog in the abortion hunt. If you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one.

        • You being a liberal and all, you certainly believe in government regulation. Here is an area I would agree with you.

          I do not believe a doctor has a Constitutional right to dig into the uterous of a woman, pull her baby out of that uterous and then to kill it, all done without government medical regulation.

          The government has a right and a duty to regulate such an activity.

          Massive fines should be the order of the day. More fines than the cost of the abortion would suit me well.

          And if done in a “back alley”, then prison time for unregulated life threatening activity of the mother, as well as the baby, should be the punishment.

        • Dissenter says:

          The government regulates it, but in regulating it, it cannot prohibit it, owing to that pesky Bill of Rights.

        • Government prohibits stuff all the time. For instance, it prohibits me from paying a woman to do things with her body against my body, that she wants to do with her body for the right amount of money. And nobody dies either. I don’t hear you crying about that.

        • Dissenter says:

          It hasn’t come up to this point. My position is that prostitution and marijuana should not be illegal, and I voted to that effect last week. Unlike the Christian Talibanis, I am consistent.

        • bodica says:

          Referring to us as ‘Talibani’ is derogatory and insane. Christians were the first to educate women, d’uh! And to acknowledge our Divinely endowed status as children of God in our own right, not incubators or beasts of burden. And so on and so forth ad nauseum, but you can’t really debate ignorance!

        • Dissenter says:

          Both the Taliban and our homegrown right-wing Xian crazies seek to inflict theocratic rule upon their countries, reducing the rest of us to dhimmitude. The only difference, frankly, is in the details.

          Actually, the freethinkers of the Enlightenment came up with the notion that all men are created equal. Quite to the contrary, Christians defended the monarchy, relying on the Bible to support that archaic position. Some were destined to rule, versus “no man is fit to rule another without his consent.” Christians defended slavery because it was taught in the Bible, but many took a dim view toward Christmas as the pagan holiday it really is.

          But you are right: I can’t debate your ignorance.

        • bodica says:

          Xian? You can’t even say ‘Christ.’ You are already a dhimmi – to the left pc-speak. The equality of man is enshrined in the Bible, and in the New Testament. ‘God has no favorites.’ Christians did not defend slavery – it was Christians who fought for abolition on both sides of the Atlantic. As for the monarchs, whose time may be over, their historical and religious roots were more complex than merits debate here. As for the ‘pagan’ holiday of Christmas – ‘Christ came to make all things new’ (St. Paul) so in the darkness of deep winter we celebrate Light; in the pagan tree, the symbol of the apple tree that lured Adam and Eve into disobedience, we have the Cross of Redemption and Resurrection, and in the image of the Christ child, we have the weakness in which ‘power is made to perfection.’ I pray that one day you may experience the joy of Christmas, allEliua!

        • Dissenter says:

          Bodica: “Xian? You can’t even say ‘Christ.’”

          I said it twice, but I don’t think that the right-wing crazies’ religion has anything to do with the recorded teachings of Jesus. Passages like “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets” have no discernible place in the Christian Talibani’s worldview.

          Bodica: “The equality of man is enshrined in the Bible, and in the New Testament. ‘God has no favorites.’”

          Do you actually have Bible study at your church, or are you just a lousy student? “Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” Didn’t you ever go through Rom. 8:28 et seq., and encounter the Calvinist doctrine of Election? The short definition of a Christian is one who doesn’t have the first clue as to what is actually in his or her Bible.

          Bodica: ” I pray that one day you may experience the joy of Christmas.”

          Jesus raped me with a baseball bat. He can ‘love’ you, too….

        • bodica says:

          Good grief, you are warped. Your last line tells me you need help. See a psychiatrist or psychologist, ASAP. Further hate rants will be ignored.

        • Dissenter says:

          Jesus is too busy either being dead or sodomizing young boys on the golf course to be of much help….

        • bodica says:

          It seems to me that you are obsessed with such matters, and therefore suspect in this area. Your remarks re Jesus are offensive and blasphemous. Go and insult the dead pedophile mohammed if you DARE.

        • Dissenter says:

          How do you blaspheme a stone idol, bodica?

          And how DARE you defame the Prophet Mohammed(pbuh)? The Most High and Merciful Al’lah will NOT be pleased. You will die a slow and painful death [a fate one of your fellow Christians wished on me today!] because Al’lah will not be mocked!!!

          You are imposing your modern worldview on a very different world, where women were chattels. Marriages were arranged, with a woman-child being betrothed at eight (like A’isha) and the marriages, consummated upon the onset of puberty. Talmudic writings of the time even discussed having sex with girls under three, saying “no harm, no foul.”

        • Dissenter says:

          How dare you defame the Prophet Mohammed(pbuh)! Al’lah the High and Most Merciful will NOT be pleased! (My earlier post was censored.)

          You arrogantly impose your modern worldview on a much different culture, where women were chattels who were betrothed at eight and married when they entered puberty. A Jewish baraitha actually discusses the propriety of having sex with a two-year old girl, concluding “no harm, no foul.” When seen in context, there was nothing untoward about Mohammed’s marriage to A’isha.

        • Government regulations prohibits a woman from inserting silicon into her breasts. Why does your government regulation tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body?

        • Dissenter says:

          Government is empowered to impose reasonable restrictions on the practice of medicine in the public interest. I might disagree with the propriety of the prohibition on marijuana use, but I can’t argue with the right of the FDA to do so.

        • bodica says:

          Well you can argue that mj use is a slow death, but the adult has chosen to use it. A helpless infant can back away from the surgeons knife, or, when born alive, from Obama’s six inch poison needle into the little terrified beating heart, but s/he cannot walk away. S/he cannot choose NOT to be murdered in it’s mommy’s womb/cave/safe place. If it’s helplessness makes it less of a person in your eyes, that actually makes you a monster. Would you take a knife and dismember a living puppy? Would you pull wings off a fly and laugh as it crawls around, disoriented? Would you, like a moslem, cut the throat of a baby lamb? I hope not, yet all the PETA fanatics and ‘animal lovers’ turn away from the reality of abortion as torture murder of a human child.

        • Dissenter says:

          Abortion is an inelegant solution for an imperfect world. Take the Down syndrome pregnancy. Raising a Down child costs a lot of money, not just for the family but for society as a whole. Throughout the developed world, 93% of women faced with a Down pregnancy choose to abort. But if your sick and sadistic god had chosen not to make junk like that, there wouldn’t be a problem, now would there be?

          If you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one. But I can see an array of situations where it makes logical sense. I can apprehend the distinction between the fertilized zygote and a child on the day of its birth, but you people seem only to be able to think in black-and-white.

          And don’t give me the nonsense about the woman knowing that she was taking the risk by having sex. Even nuns can be raped, and there is a small risk of serious harm assumed by those who take oral contraceptives. No woman wants to have an abortion, but many women need to. Sucks, but life ain’t perfect.

        • bodica says:

          No woman ‘needs’ to have an abortion. Perhaps you need an exorcist more than you need a psychologist. Your hatred of God, of life and of His beautiful creations – and that includes Downs Syndrome, your anger and rage makes you a danger to yourself.

        • Dissenter says:

          Are you a woman of prime child-bearing age? If not, you don’t have standing to opine as to what a woman “needs.”

          Me, I’m just a pragmatist. I blanch at the thought of telling others what to do, and if abortion cures an unwanted pregnancy or a stent cures Chris Christie’s coronary, who am I to deprive them of it? You may like playing God, but I assiduously avoid it at every opportunity.

          I struggle in vain to find any beauty in this photo (see post following, as it appears to have been censored) paradigmatic of the inherently sadistic and selfish nature of the god you promote. For God so loved the vulture, that he gave a human son so that he might eat and have life? (The fellow who took that photo committed suicide within the year.)

          Perhaps you can explain to that child why he should internalize Phil. 4:12.

          Your god says that he hates divorce (somewhere in Malachi), but you seem to indulge in it more often than us heathen. And adultery? How about the saga of General BetrayMe? Abortion is a practical solution, and while I might not want it for myself, who am I to take that right from others? You are the one who appears to have psychological problems — you may be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

        • “…but you people seem only to be able to think in black-and-white.”
          “Fifty Shades of Gray” is all the rage. Well, if something’s alive, making it not live is killing it. That’s kind of black and white, all right.
          But for all the silliness kids come up with, we now have to deal with zombies…something not dead, but not living, either.
          I, a rational human being, do not believe in zombies. If you made something that was living die, that is killing. If it was human and not attacking you to start with, and you made a deliberate decision to kill it, that is–at the very least–homicide.
          For the life of me, I don’t know how anyone rational cannot grasp this argument. History shows that when we start this “imperfect world” stuff, we start setting out a broader and broader net of people who make this world imperfect. Eventually, we wind up drawing the net around ourselves.

        • bodica says:

          If I don’t want a mother in law I don’t have the right to bump her off. end of.

        • Dissenter says:

          The law recognizes a rational distinction between a child and a zygote. you are locked in a dogmatic form of extremism. I say that if you are serious in your position, you and your daughters should be able to be drafted off the street and forcibly impregnated with “snowflake babies.” I mean, it’s not like they are exactly using their uterii at the time….

          If you maintain that life begins at conception and must be protected at law from that moment on, you end up with a lot of outcomes that no one wants or would tolerate for long. Got chastity belt?

        • Kirby says:

          You sound like you have a through grip on the mind-think of the Liberally educated. talk enough words and tie yourself up into endless knots of unreality.
          The Cosdntitution has been bypassed and deemd irrelevant along with the law, Congress, state’s rights, balance of powers, and Congress.

        • twj1964 says:

          Roe was and is a terrible piece of badly written, late 60′s early 70′s – when Leftist mindless word drool ruled the roost, unfortunately, Supreme Court holding. The abortion issue needs to be dealt with by all the States first without party politics distorting possible better legislation. That’s my 2 cents.

        • Dissenter says:

          Actually, it was very well written, but the Court would have been better off if it had followed the Ninth/Tenth Amendment prescription.

          I blanch at the thought of individual rights being subject to majority vote.

        • actor44 says:

          Nice to see one who can THINK and REASON!

        • Thanks. I appreciate that

        • tryingtopickaname says:


        • katjan68 says:

          Just so you know Obama did not win in one single county where voter ID was required

        • TLady62 says:

          No shocker there.

        • Great thing to know. Can you cite where you got that from.

        • Christian Democrat says:

          Prove that statement! It’s untrue and you have no proof, and you know it.

        • tryingtopickaname says:

          Let’s flip it around…since there is ample documentation that these statistically impossible turnouts occurred nationwide—I’ll even give you a few hints to get you on the path to educating yourself. Philadlephia. Ohio, Colorado, Boston—YOU offer your own proof to refute what you are categorically denying with nothing to buttress that claim.

        • Grey Wolf says:

          Mr Christian Democrat can you prove its untrue… no you cant because it wasn’t on the news and internet…it cant be proven either way and we both know that….they knew of the story’s and never posted anything denying it on the internet nor did they instruct media to do so because they didn’t want it to come back to bite them if someone brought proof so there is your proof it was done but i guess i need to bring the security cam from my aunts house where they DID do it at her house in FL oh wait that means i have the proof they thought they got with her hard drive…Opps….

        • FRANK says:

          because it was voters fraud petitions was signed for fraud did it do any good no they were sent to Washington all the Obama campaign was going around in Florida knocking on doors and trying to take their ballots and telling people they were not legal to vote so do you leaches out there think he won he did by cheating and doing things that was not right

        • Grey Wolf says:

          do we wonder why….he couldn’t bus in voters

        • bodica says:

          It’s not so simplistic, fellow Christian. Check out the parent companies of the main media arteries.

        • twj1964 says:

          No need to bring up genealogy. Exposing the Left’s politics and why any sentient being would vote for one of them is more than enough to discuss in my opinion.

        • Ahh a dissenter is a Jewish dissenter. Seig Heil there.

        • Kirby says:

          The federal courts have already been stuffed with Obama clones.

        • Dissenter says:

          Obviously, you don’t know much about our federal courts. Bush packed the courts with drooling right-wing ideologues for eight years.

        • Carol says:

          Uh…hello…..massive voter fraud…..Its screwed up.

        • Actually a huge portion of our elections were counted this year in Spain by the Soros company SKYTL. ;-)

        • actor44 says:

          Uninformed annalogy!

        • No the electoral college is the only thing standing between the north east and California from ruling every election because of their population advantage. Change the winner takes all way of awarding the delegates. I a candidate gets 50.5 or 51% of the state he should not get 100% of the electoral college points in that state. It disenfranchises the other 49% of the voters. Look at California always wins for Democrats even though many people vote otherwise. This change needs to be done in the states.

        • You are on the right path, but there are many takes on the issue.

          For a 50-50 split, it seems ludicrus to see the State’s electoral votes go 100% one way or the other. And that would depend on whether you would be a Democrat or a Republican.

          But clearly the 50-50 battleground States get the lion’s share of the attention, so I don’t see them changing thier ways.

          The ones who get shafted are the one who vote overwhemlingly one way or the other. They are ignored and forgotten.
          So does Massachussetts get massive Democrat aid by voting down their favorite son? Not compared to the promises made to Ohio to get their electroal votes.
          And if RINOmoney had won, would the massive delegate count from Texas have had RINOmoney’s heart for putting him over the top? Nope, Ohio would have.

        • To me, the most logical and least prone to corruption would be the two States who give winner take all to the two electoral votes they have for their two allotted Senate seats, while allowing individual winner take all to each individual House Congressional district within the State.
          That way the electoral vote of the much smaller district within the State is represented and knows exactly how their vote was counted, as the State count total gets uploaded to the federal count total. And the States get their two cents worth in as well with their two Senator electors.

        • Dissenter says:

          Why should a Wyoming citizen’s vote carry four times as much weight as that of a Californian?

        • Looking at this like a liberal I see.
          All the New England States put together will not fill just the panhandle of Texas, so why should they have more influence than Texas?

        • Dissenter says:

          Because no one in their right mind would agree to such an arrangement? Land doesn’t vote; people do.

        • Still looking at this like a liberal. Texans have suceeded twice already when the rules were changed on them. Why would Texas have joined the United States if they were going to be ruled from New England? Why would Texas stay if New England decided they wanted all the power?

        • Dissenter says:

          The Texans cut the deal because it was in their self interest at the time. But you have heard the tale of the horse, the man and the wolf, have you not?

        • Deals are cut on both sides dude.

          You said “The Framers made the deal; there is no reason why we can’t revise it.”

          Being the slimy liberal that you are, you want to squelch on the deal for representation which Wyoming entered the union with and has had since it entered the union. I can only presume you wish to do the same to Texas.
          And you want to do so with the brute force of the overpopulated and liberal States of New England and Califonia.
          This is exactly why the electoral college is in place buddy. To keep liberal bullies from New England and Califonia from running their State.

        • Dissenter says:

          Never mind that Wyoming, like all Western states, were creatures of the federal government.

          There is nothing that prevents us from adopting General Washington’s recommendation in the Philadelphia convention limiting the size of congressional districts to 30,000 constituents. It would fix the injustices of the electoral college, and vastly improve congressional representation. Personally, I would like nothing better than to let the failed welfare queen states of Jesusland fend for themselves; we’re tired of carrying you dole bludgers.

        • And going with your theme. Everyone “in their right mind” agreed that Wyoming voters would get 4x the representation than California voters, but also knoew that the total sum of Wyoming votes in the electoral college is a nat’s-ass compared to the total electoral votes of California.

        • Dissenter says:

          The Framers made the deal; there is no reason why we can’t revise it.

        • Spoken like a true Progressive.
          In my world, we repeal all the garbage Progressive like you have saddled the Constitution with.

        • Dissenter says:

          By that metric, Thomas Jefferson was a Progressive.

          I would happily allow Texas to secede.

        • Kirby says:

          Correction, the word “vote” has been relegated to the manure pile.

        • James Vijay says:

          So you think electoral votes should be proportional to the area of a state, and not its population?

        • No, I’m playing devil’s advocate withg a liberal wanting to deprive Wyoming of its measly 3 electoral college votes. I said, “Looking at this like a liberal…”

        • Kirby says:

          Obama has already trumped & checkmated the whole smear.

        • sailboat165 says:

          Winner takes all in a state with millions of voters really does lessen the importance of an awful lot of Voters Add to that, the obvious cheating that occurs when people don’t need to show ID makes the whole voting procedure a frustration for many. I thought that we had flaws in our system in Canada but compared to you folks in the USA ours is a breeze.

        • And how would winner take all in a true national election make the losers feel any better among hundreds of millions of voters?

          How about the other way around? I won in my State, so I should feel very important, but they do have this thing about winner take all at the national level anyway, and I did lose there.

        • sailboat165 says:

          I don’t expect you to understand our system. I should have explained better. Each province has a number of ridings Each party has a representative running in it for the election. The number of ridings in the province is more or less based on population. Whichever party wins the most ridings in the country forms the government. I think that each persons vote has more value when your party can win your particular riding even if it doesn’t win or form government. I guess it’s personal choice but I don’t think that winner takes all in the whole state is all thats it’s cracked up to be.
          Sent from my iPad

        • Well, what you explained you have in Canada roughly sounds the same as here to me. We have a representative for each “riding” as well. These are House congressional districts here and they too are based upon population. The only difference I suppose is that we throw in an additional 2 per State to represent the Senate part of our two-part Congress. Our States created the Federal government and they wanted a say in the government they created.
          And I have already agreed that having the States Senatorial portion based on State majority, while having each “riding” going to the winner of that district makes logical sense.
          The thing is, that each State’s legislature is free to determine whatever way it wants to partion out its electroal college votes. Technically, a State legislature can even decide all by themselves, without a vote of the people, who gets the electoral college votes, but I’m not aware of that ever happening –so far….

        • Kirby says:

          “Logic”. How archaic in this age of just taking a sledge hammer to public administration. Blah, blah, blah, blabbity, blab, blab. You would think public discourse actually mattered anymore.

        • Kirby says:

          Or, you just throw in a corrupted polling place, machine, and process, and the whole thing is negated.

        • Kirby says:

          Ah, reality strikes a mind!

        • David, I had to respond to Dissenter asking why Wyoming votes count 4x of California. You had mentioned the NorthEast, so I replied: “All of New England could fit inside the panhandle of Texas, so why do they get more representation than Texas”.
          You are right. The Founders balanced State interests and the interests of the people in the States with the electoral college made up of an automatic two votes for the Sentator and one additional vote for each representative.

        • Kirby says:

          Goood idea. Yes, jettison the Electoral College and reinstitute when the Constitution, law, Congress, balance of powers, and the real Supreme Court have been reinstituted.
          Lessee, we can wait on the tooth fairy to come to our rescue, too.

        • Dissenter says:

          I thought you already believed in the Market Fairy, and how trickle-down economics would shower the working man with untold wealth. Funny how we got the down, but not the trickle….

        • agrclemsonfarmn says:

          no, no.bho would have had to campaigned in just 6 major cities. Look at this year’s blue/red notice where blue is–major cities with minority & illegals as large chunk
          I agree no democrat statesmen, as Senate has stopped ANY attempt to govern

        • Grey Wolf says:

          why yes i would sir

        • Wayne Leach says:

          …and, possibly a Congress that would insist that Executive Orders apply ONLY to the Executive Department, not to the nation as a whole, and to foreign policy!

        • Hagar says:

          Mr. Leach , the US just needs a congress that will do its job and hold the president accountable rather than one that fears part of its members.
          Much of the problem with the US government is that it has become the worse enemy of the productive people. Just a tool of the minorities and select groups. It will get worse, because people forget that they are the ones responsible for holding the govt to the constitution. I think the best way to describe the the citizens are four code words: 1. Stupidity, 2. Apathy. 3. Ignorance. and 4. Weakness. This has been in the brainwashing of americans since 1964. Just go back and follow the conditions and laws in the society since 1964. Unless you are blind you can easily see the problems as they incrimentally appear.

        • agrclemsonfarmn says:

          Mitt lost for one reason and I quote Rush “you can’t compete with Santa Claus”

        • bodica says:

          Obama’s no Santa Claus. He’s the witch in Hansel and Gretel!

        • jbarrus says:

          Here’s what Constitution Concepts Foundation is proposing


          WHEREAS, We, the Sovereign Citizens of the several State Republics, that constitute the united States of America, declare that this is our Country,
          • it does not belong to the politicians,
          • nor does it belong to the bankers,
          • or to the attorneys,
          • nor does it belong to the judges.

          Not only is It our Country, but, We, the Sovereign Citizens, are the real power, and the only valid authority, behind the Federal Government and the various State Governments that We, the Sovereign Citizens have established; and

          WHEREAS, We also declare that the said Governments were created for the sole purpose of protecting and defending the unalienable rights that were given to us by our Father in Heaven and therefore You, our Public Servants, have no power, no authority, no right, and no duty to do anything beyond what powers We, the Sovereign Citizens have granted in our several Constitutions; and

          WHEREAS, We, the Sovereign Citizens, require that ALL of our public servants subscribe to, and affirm their willingness to abide by our prescribed Oath of Office before they are permitted to hold any position that We, the Sovereign Citizens, have created; and

          WHEREAS, The said Oath of Office is for the specific purpose of protecting and defending our Constitution for the United States of America against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. We firmly declare that the Oath of Office is a “binding contract” between our Public Servants and We, the Sovereign Citizens, which our Public Servants are duty bound to honor amd obey, and that by violating their Oath of Office they have become domestic enemies to We, the Sovereign Citizens; and

          WHEREAS, We have determined that many of our elected and appointed officials are not in compliance with their sacred oath of office; and

          WHEREAS, Not only have they refused to heed their Oath of Office Contract with us, they are ignoring the mandates and provisions that We, the Sovereign Citizens, established in our Constitution for the United States of America and our Constitutions for the several States; and

          WHEREAS, We, the Sovereign Citizens understand that whenever any form of governement becomes destructive of the purposes for which it was created, We, the Sovereign Citizens, have the right, the power, the duty, and the obligation, to amend or alter such government and to institute a new government organizing its powers in such manner as to effect our Lives, our Liberty, and our pursuit of Happiness, and assure us that these principals are saved for our posterity; and

          WHEREAS, We, the Sovereign Citizens fully recognize the Constitution that was submitted to the States for their ratification and approval on September 17, 1787 as the true Constitution, and the only Constitution that validly exists for our united States of America; and

          WHEREAS, We, the Sovereign Citizens recognize the first TEN (10) Amendments to the said Constitution, which Amendments are referred to as the “Bill of Rights.” We specically ban Congress and any State Legislature from doing anything other than what has been specifically authorized in the Constitution.

          WHEREAS, we do not recognize the 14th Amendment and the 16th Amendment as having been properly ratified and hereby remove them from the Constitution. Neither Amendment shall have any force or effect from this time forward.

          WHEREAS, We hereby declare the 17th Amendment was proposed and ratified in order to limit the power and control of the States over the Federal Government, We therefore declare the 17th Amendment to be counter to the provisions and conditions established by our Founding Fathers. The said 17th Amendment will no longer be a part of the Constitution for the united States of America.

          WHEREAS, our Founding Fathers established a provision to restrict and control any and all interference from foreign governments or powers by a valid Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America that has been unlawfully removed after appearing in various government publications until 1876, We, the Sovereign Citizens hereby restore the true 13th Amendment to its rightful position as a valid Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America.

          If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the united States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them. – True 13th Amendment to the Constitution for the united States of America

          WHEREAS. all of the provisions in each and every Constitution We have written are either Mandatory, or Prohibitory. Which We declare to mean that if an action is mandated in one of our Constitutions by We, the Sovereign Citizens, it must be done, and if a power or authority is not granted, it cannot be done. Let us be very clear, “None of the various Governements that have been created by We, the Sovereign Citizens, has any inherent power to do anything other that what We, the Sovereign Citizens have specifically dictated they do; and

          WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of the United States fully understands, and concurs with We, the Solvereign Citizens, in its ruling, that no government has any inherent power to do anything other than the things that are specifically mandated by We, the Sovereign Citizens, in our various Constitutions

          Congress can exercise no power by virtue of any supposed inherent sovereignty in the general government. Indeed it may be doubted whether the power can be correctly said to appertain to sovereignty in any proper sense, as an attribute of an independent political community. The power to commit violence, perpetrate injustice, take private property by force without compensation to the owner, and compel the receipt of promises to pay in place of money, may be exercised, as it often has been, by irresponsible authority, but it cannot be considered as belonging to a government founded upon law. But be that as it may, there is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States. It is a government of delegated powers, supreme within its prescribed sphere but powerless outside of it. In this country, sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution, entrusted to it; all else is withheld. – Justice Field – Legal Tender Case, Julliard vs Greenman – 110 U.S. 421 (1884); and

          WHEREAS, many of our Public Servants have run rampant in devising and establishing various departments, divisions, and other government functions that have no basis in any of our Constitutions, and in many cases are devised for the sole purpose of meeting some pre-conceived notion of benefitting themselves, or select members of society, to the detriment of We, the Sovereign People,

          NOW, THEREFORE, in order to regain the total and complete control over our several governments, We, the Sovereign Citizens do hereby declare the reestablishment of our Superior Common Law Court for each State Republic, with all of the power, authority, and rights that We, the Sovereign Citizens hold in administering the functions and actions of our own Governments and of our Superior Common Law Courts.

          WE FIRMLY DECLARE that the Common Law belongs to the People, for their exclusive use in all matters concerning our Life, our Liberty, and our Pursuit of Happiness, the exact same unalienable rights that were given to us by our Creator.

          None of the governments that we have created, and therefore, none of the courts created under our various Constitutions, hold any powers of Common Law, and therefore cannot make any ruling concerning any of our unalienable rights from our Creator.

          It must be pointed out that in a Common Law Court there is no Judge, there are the 12 justices who comprise the jury. Also, there are no Attorneys. Each person who is a party to a dispute must answer the questions posed by the Justices, for himself, or herself. Thus a Common Law Court really is a Trial by Jury as We the People set forth and required in our Federal Constitution.

          The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed – Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 3 – Constitution for the United States of America

          Even the Supreme Court acknowledges the fact that the Constitution does not grant any rights to the Common Laws, which are the very basis of all laws in this Country.

          There is no federal general common law. Congress has no power to declare substantive rules of common law applicable in a state whether they be local in their nature or ‘general,’ be they commercial law or a part of the law of torts. And no clause in the Constitution purports to confer such a power upon the federal courts. – – Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)

          We also point out that the only law enforcement powers granted by We, the People, in the Federal Constitution, and in the various State Constitutions is to our State Militias. No Government has the power, or the authority, or the right to create any other law enforcement entity.

          The words, Police, Sheriff, Marshal, Deputy, Prosecutor and Prison do not appear in our Federal Constitution. And no alternate form of those words appears. We, the People, did not give any government the power, or the authority to prosecute, or persecute, us in any way, and yet, the Federal Government, as well as many State Governments, have seen fit to create a virtual police state with a massive prison system, all of which is unconstitutional.

          You also need to be aware of the fact that there are only three crimes that the Federal Government has the power to prosecute. These are:
          • Counterfeiting the current coins and securities of the United States
          ▸ Federal Reserve Notes, issued by the Privately owned Federal Reserve Bank are not Current Coins or Securities of the United States, and no reproduction of them will be classed as counterfeiting the current coins or securities of the United States.
          ▸ We, the Sovereign Citizens mandated the right to coin money, but granted no right to print money.
          • To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the High Seas
          ▸ This power was granted in order to protect and defend our sea going trade, which was all we had in the way of International dealings.
          • Offenses against the Law of Nations
          ▸ This power was granted to assure other countries that we intended to be a full fledged member of the International consortium of nations.

          The following citations from the Constitution are the only provisions for the Federal Government to prosecute anyone.

          To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 6, Constitution for the United States of America

          To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 10, Constitution for the United States of America

          The office of Sheriff existed in the colonies before the ratification of our Constitution, and in England, going all the way back to the “Magna Charta” in 1215.

          We, the Sovereign Citizens specifically reprimand the various State legistlatures and the several Governors for their failure to comply with our Constitutional mandate to establish, arm, and train the Militia. The establishment of the several State Militias, with all of their proper powers and authority, will be among the first actions taken by us.

          We, the Citizens, are entitled to have proper, lawful, law enforcement officers execute the laws of the land, suppress insurrections and especially repel invasions such as the invasion of illegal aliens which is now going on among us.

          In order to enforce the establishment of the Militia, We, the Sovereign Citizens, do hereby establish the rule that each and every member of the Militia must have his, or her, own gun, or be subject to a fine of FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($5,000.00) and SIX (6) months in the County Jail. It is not right that a Militia Member should expect other Militia Members to protect and defend them. The Militia is charged with protecting and defending all of the Citizens, and each Militia Member must be fully prepared to discharge their duty. Neither the Federal Congress, or any of the State Legislatures, shall have the right to modify, or change, this rule in any manner, and, there shall not be any qualification check for the purchase of a gun, and the guns must not be registered in any manner. Any and all gun registration records must be destroyed immediately, and certified proof of the destruction of the records will be published so the public knows.

          We, the People, hereby mandate that our duly elected County Sheriff is, and will be, under the control and direction of the branch of the Superior Common Law Court for each County, and will be the individual in charge of the Militia for the County. The Sheriff is the highest ranking, elected, law enforcement officer in a County and no law enforcement activity, of any kind may occur within the County without his express permission.

          The militia shall consist of all able-bodied male inhabitants of the State, between the ages of eighteen and sixty-five years, except such as are exempted by law. We further expand upon this concept in that we open the Militia to any woman in the same age bracket who wants to participate, and order that anyone who wants to continue membership after sixty-five years of age may do so, provided they are in good health.

          The Governor shall be Commander-in-Chief of the military forces of the State. He shall work with the County Sheriffs to train and arm the Militia and, when necessary, to call out the militia to execute the laws of the Nation, or of the State, to suppress insurrection, or to repel invasion.

          The actions of We, the Sovereign Citizens, shall not, and will not, be classified as any type or form of insurrection.

          We, the People, have been carefully taught by those who would exert their will over us, that the Militia, and the Common Law Courts, no longer exist.

          Nothing could be further from the truth. Article 7 of the Bill of Rights is still in full force and effect, and it says that decisions by the Superior Common Law Court cannot be reviewed by any other court, and the provisions in the various Constitutions concerning the Militia have never been changed.

          The corrupt politicians, attorneys, judges, and bureaucrats know that they must destroy the truth behind the concepts of the Common Law and the Militias in order to leave the Citizens powerless and unable to protect and defend themselves. The last thing to go before we are completely dominated, is our right to bear arms, and, in spite of the clear mandate against any gun laws, they are doing everything in their power to get rid of our guns.

          A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. – Second Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America

          We want to make it very clear that the most basic unalienable right given to us by our Father in Heaven is the right to protect and defend ourselves. Without that right, all of the other rights become meaningless because they can be taken from us by corrupt and evil men and women. Our right to defend ourselves is the underlying reason that our unalienable rights cannot, and should not, be bothered. We, the Sovereign Citizens, want to point out that:


          If you are currently holding a public office and do not want to work with us,
          you are welcome to resign immediately.

          Those Sovereign Citizens who want to add their voices to this action, can send an e-mail with their name, address, and phone number to [email protected] and join with us.

        • Robert says:

          Nail on the head!!!!

        • Retired Chief Petty Officer says:

          I have believed this for a long time. i end most of my posts with the same phrase I will use here, compliments of Cato the Elder, Roman Senate, 110BC. This I believe and that the 17th Amendment must be rescinded.

        • Great to be in your company.

        • Kirby says:

          “Massive public realtions” – First off I’m sick and tired of even and just my fellow Christians who tell me to leave them alone. They have their “little ministries” and don’t want to be bothered. What does that portend for the rest of the citizenry. Public realtions is grand dependent on someone’s listening. The American public (Christians included) care more for football, basketball, and golf than the fact our nation is under total siege from an agressive cancer.

          Publicize all you want. Our people have more than redundantly proven they don’t give a rip until it hurts them so bad it will be to late. The ctizenry don’t care about being informed. To much effort and attention from their golf game.

          Gluttons don’t stop porking out until the heart attack is well down the rampway.

          I don’t waste time fantasizing on anything but reality.

        • Phillip_in_TX says:

          You are spot on! We need the 17th Amendment repealed and have the States appoint their Senators again. The States have not been represented in Washington D.C. since 1913.

        • bodica says:

          I can testify to the systematic disenfranchisement of conservative artists and writers in the monopolist left as well as to the violence of Demrat thugs.

      • Veteranasm says:

        Texas and Louisiana are leaving the union, s#it is fixing to hit the fan, best be prepared !!!

      • drtevans says:

        get off the net and take real action for a start.

      • antiliberalcryptonite says:

        Sic Semper Tyrannis

      • Read the Declaration of Independence when a country is under ttyranny.,Why do you think they are trying to do away with the 2nd amendment? Once they do thatwe are no longer a free country, so make up your minds what has to be done it cannot be any clearer.

      • Donna Mohler says:

        MARCH ON DC! MARCH ON DC!!!! Yes some of might lose our Freedom,but look how many have lost their lives FOR FREEDOM!!! ARE we a country of COWARDS???

      • Chuck says:

        Nothing you can do, friend. White America died last Tuesday. Millions of Republican stayed home. In effect voting for Obama.

      • dhmill says:

        The old saying used to be,”keep your powder dry”. You may need it yet.

    • jerome ennis says:

      Double Dittoes buddy. God Bless America and Rescue Us From This Tyranny.

    • Susitna says:

      You are absolutely right and we have to request a recount in Florida, Virginia, Ohio and in other battleground states. On top of that we should request Obama to proof his eligibility to the electoral college. Everyone was picking on Trump when he made an offer to Obama, but he was right. Obama couldn’t present anything, no record no nothing! This “request to proof eligibility to The People” has to happen before the electoral college meets to confirm Obama’s election. I cannot handle this anymore! Something has to be done! We are not in a Banana Republic!

      • Timmy says:

        Yes we are too. We have too many “banana heads” or “noodle brains” or whatever you want to call them going to the polls and voting for crap like Obama. The guy is a fraud from the git-go. Dems should be ashamed for putting him on the ticket in the first place. I believe that history will one day prove that we have been snookered by this slick talker and that he is really a Kenyan who is ineligible for the Presidency. What a nation of idiots we have become.

        • firstsonofliberty says:

          I have a friend in Nevada who emailed me at the end. He said when he went to vote he pressed Romney 3 times and all 3 came up Obuma. He told one of the people in charge she came in pressed it once and it went through. But the first 3 votes still went through to Obuma. The day after the vote was counted in that small town there were 660 votes for Obuma and 36 votes for Romney. What was crooked he said, that there are only 383 registered voter in that town of 900.

        • katjan68 says:

          That was happening all over the country. Makes you wonder how many voted without realizing they had voted for the wrong person

        • actor44 says:

          We have been overthrown! Read the FREEDOM FROM WAR DOCUMENT 7277 signed by the U.S, STATE DEPARTMENTin 1961,then google the SMALL ARMS TREATY!

        • Observant_One says:

          I believe that we can lay this one on the infiltration of our educational system by the progressives. Their entry into “educating” our young’s minds has finally born fruit in the form of obama. Kinda wants to make one puke, actually.

      • suzy2 says:

        I have written and called my Senator and other Senators to demand a recount for all the reasons Iisted. I have called nearly everyday. If you all do the same maybe we will hear something. I am bombbarding them with letters and phone calls. Do the same and let them know they work for “We The People” . I am also now targeting Fox News for they keep stating how much Obama won by numbers thaty are not true. They don’t mention the big time fraud. This whole system makes me sick. I actually believe the only way any of them will listen is if we start acting like a third world country and have a civil war to get our point across. They aren’t listening. To them we are just peaons. They shrug us off as if we can do nothing. So maybe we should get loud, real loud!

      • Spintz33 says:

        If Romany, when asked to show his tax records, would have told them that he would if Obama would show his college records and passport records. If Romany had done that he would have won by a landslide.

    • John Randall says:

      Thats about the most intelligent comment i have heard in a long time, Its nice to hear the truth for a change.

    • SkyHawk says:


    • KurtofLA says:

      Darn it, the foresight of our founders was amazing. They gave us a second Amendment. trouble is that we have no desire for freedom

      • Doug Rodrigues says:

        Watch Obama and Hillary try using the UN to grab the guns. Any American who abides by any new “law” or treaty with the UN to register or turn-in guns is a fool.

    • Dissenter says:

      A Republican Governor vouched for the authenticity of the birth certificate on file, and the theory that Obama was born in Kenya was sliced, diced, and fricasseed by Occam’s Razor. Give it up, tin-foilers!

      • A Republican Governor ran for President and never even attempted to make the case that Obama was ineligible to run against him.
        Is that the Republican Governor of which you speak?

        • Dissenter says:

          Linda Lingle, of Hawai’i. She was in a position to examine the original, and I am satisfied by her attestation, largely because the alternate theory is so fantastic as to invite scorn from rational men.

        • Who in the heck is Linda Lingle? How does she get to decide official documents for 350 million people?

        • Dissenter says:

          Ms. Lingle was Governor of the State charged with maintaining official birth records, which gives her opinion added weight. Yeah, we allow the officials of the various states to do that, and we accept their judgments pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

          You can believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and Jesus being raised from the dead — like Carroll’s White Queen, you can believe a half-dozen impossible things before breakfast. But rational people have the right to laugh at you, as the alternate theory regarding Obama is so tortured and evidence-free that it qualifies as high comedy.

        • I fail to see how a requirement for national office comes under a State’s full faith and credit clause. I would welcome a Supreme Court decision on just that, but we don’t have one do we.

          Besides, there are plenty of questions that go beyond whatever is on the birth certificate Ms. Dinlge refuses to let us see. Like the fact that he is not a natural born citizen by nature of not having been natural born of two American citizens and questions about his citizenship while being schooled in Indonesia.

          The fact seems to be that you are the one who falls for whatever is said which you wish to believe. How does that make you superior?

        • Dissenter says:

          You misunderstand. A Hawai’i birth certificate is accepted throughout the Republic, pursuant to the FF&C clause.

          Actually, as long as he was born in Hawai’i with one citizen as a parent, he a natural-born citizen.

          Occam’s Razor, What would have to happen for the birthers’ theory to be true is so fantastic, one must suspend disbelief to even consider it.

        • I am quickly suspending any belief in your crazy theories.
          So long as a baby was born on American soil with even NO PARENTS, he or she is a “citizen of the United States”, per the 14th Amendment.

          But the 14th Amendment came along 70 years after the Constitution talked about “natural born citizen” as a requirement for the office of the President. The definition of the meaning of “natural born citizen” is what many wants the Supreme Court to weigh in on, and they refuse to accept this case in controversy, as they are charged to do. And this case is so controversial as to threaten to split this country apart.

          Certainly before the 14th Amendment, many States were saying that black men and women were not citizens, so under that scenario alone, Obama would not be a natural born citizen if you accepted the full faith and credit of all the Southern States who would NEVER allow Obama on the ballot in their State.

          FF&C states “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.”

          FF&C does not require the federal government to give the States any faith or credit.

        • Silver says:

          Dissenter is the perfect reason why you can’t reason with a dim-witted lib. They are just to stupid to have a thought on their own. They MUST BE TOLD EVERY THOUGHT. You can argue with them until the end of time. They will never get it. They’re ALL too stupid. Don’t waste your breath.

        • Glad others realize that too Silver. Thanks But I hate to have their propaganda hang out there unrebutted. Too much of that going on in the MSM which we are not given the chance to rebut.

        • Dissenter says:

          The modern reading of the 14Am is actually debatable, which is why i took the more conservative position. The purpose of that awkward wording was, according to the Globe, to disenfranchise First Nations tribes, who literally lived in separate nations. (FWIW, I would concur with the Russell Pearce crowd on this one, and agree with Professor Chin that McCain was in fact ineligible to be President.)

          What would have happened before the advent of the 14th is irrelevant.

          Your take on the FF&C clause is novel; I’ve never researched it.

        • You talk about Common law and yet you don’t understand it as evidenced in believing that John McCain was ineligible to be President from having been “born outside the United States”.
          In English common law, in England, women were not allowed to inherit the estate of her husband if she did not meet both of two critical criteria. Those were 1) She had to be married to a British subject and 2) She had to be domiciled in England. So in fact, an Irishman married to a French lady who lived with the French lady in France could not inherit English lands as; although, she was tied to an Englishman, she was not also tied to the land of England.
          Where the John McCain simularity comes into play is another case in English common law.
          An English diplomat serving in Belgium met and married a Russian lady. When he died, she was allowed to inherit her husband’s lands. The ruling stated that the diplomat took his residence with him in his official duties, so the wife was domiciled in England, even though she had never once set foot on English soil.
          In the case of John McCain, since his parents were attached to the Panama Canal Zone on official U.S. government business, they took their American domicile with them. Hence, according to U.S. common law, John McCain was a natural born citizen of the United States, even though technically born outside the United States and was eligible to be President.

        • Doug Rodrigues says:

          I was born and raised in Hawaii. Linda Lingle is a RINO. The entire State of Hawaii is permeated with so-called Liberals regardless of what political party they claim to be in. Hawaii is a give me / give me State at the teat of the Federal Government. I believe that any documentation in Hawaii is probably the form requesting a Hawaii birth certificate be issued on the basis that the parents lived in Hawaii for the year prior to birth. Per Hawaii Territorial Law, and then State Law, one can be born ANYWHERE and still be issued a Hawaii Birth Certificate. The three ways to get a Hawaii Birth Certificate are (1) The hospital sends a signed certificate to the Dept. of Health, however there is no record of Obama’s mother ever being admitted to any hospital in Hawaii? (2) Someone fills out of form attesting a birth at home. (3) Someone fills out a form attesting that the parents lived in Hawii for the year prior to birth. Take your pick. All of Obama’s records EVERYWHERE are sealed? Why? Because he’s a fraud. If Obama’s background of circumstantial evidence was used against him in a Criminal Court (it shoud be!), he’d be in prison. There is such a massive amount of circumstantial evidence against Obama that only an idiot wouldn’t be able to see it. Keep those blinders on. The real world can be a scary place. I know, it’s easier to believe the left-wing propaganda than to
          function as an adult.

        • Dissenter says:

          My understanding is that privacy laws mean that the records are sealed as a default; that he had no interest in indulging the Donald Trump Furballs is not problematic for me. He has no obligation to indulge your curiosity.

          Were you as fervent in demanding Mitt Romney’s 2000-2009 tax returns? Didn’t think so, hypocrite. And as for welfare queens, the red states are the worst offenders:

        • Those tax records were the only documents requested which were truly private, as the amount of money you owe in taxes or the amount of money you make in life is NOT a requirement to be President of the United States.
          What is a requirement to be President is proof that you will show some form of allegience toward the United States — by PROVING yourself a natural born citizen of this country.
          Hiding those records PROVING qualification for office is a felony offense to the Constitution. (or it sure should have been after 2008 and before 2012)
          Of course, since we all NOW know that Obama has no allegience to the United States, we are just talking academics here.
          Once again the wisdom of the Founding Fathers shines through.

        • Dissenter says:

          GEORGE Romney respectfully disagreed, and I agree with him. While Mitt was not legally obligated to release his returns, we were not obligated to hire him. Moreover, his tax returns suggested that he had committed voter and possibly tax fraud. As George intimated, it speaks to character.

          Allegiance to the United States is demonstrated by the oath of office, and no further proof is required. How do you measure it objectively, without a polygraph administered under the influence of sodium pentethol? I can find no objective basis for intimating that he does not have allegiance to the USA; that his vision of the nation differs from your peculiar one is not a basis for disqualification.

          As for his qualification as a natural-born citizen, the representations of the state of Hawai’i are presumptively sufficient.

        • Thanks for sharing that. I believe you more than I believe your Governor. We all know politicians lie with every opening of their mouths.

        • Observant_One says:

          Right now, it seems to me that you don’t sound very rationale to anyone on this site.

        • Dissenter says:

          You are entitled to your tendentious delusions.

      • Hey dude, what is a tin-foiler?

      • Luci Tomlin says:

        In EVERY State in the United States, you can get a LEGAL Certified Copy of your Birth Certificate within fifteen minutes! It is YOURS and you have a RIGHT to it!
        WHY did it take HIM two years to “craft” one that has been declared a fraud by QUALIFIED Authorities all over the world! And if it WAS “real”, WHY was it out of sequence with the other three birth certificates recorded on the same day? And with the CORRECT name of the hospital? Recording BC’s are done in the ORDER of the BIRTH! HIS was not! And while we are on the subject of “fraud”, why did he, up until ’09, use a SS# belonging to a Frenchman born in 1890, immigrating to the USA, settling in Connecticut, being assigned the same SS# THERE is 1977 that 0′B used? JPL later passed away in Hawaii! Where it is documented that HIS maternal Grandmother worked at the Probate Office of the Honolulu Court House! But it’s probably just a freak(?) coincident! Nothing there! You can go now!

        • Luci Tomlin says:

          I forgot something that applies to fraud! WHY did HE need an “ALIAS” in Chicago, one who lived at the same address on Greenwood, named as a spouse/sister to Michelle, had the same birthdate, and the same SS# as 0′B? SS# Which happened to be the one that was issued to the Frenchman, JPL, in Connecticut? Again, probably just a freaky coincident!

        • Dissenter says:

          Snopes seems to disagree, Luci. I tend to agree that it is the birthers’ burden to prove their case, and explain the inexplicable in the process. How would a very pregnant and financially-challenged Ann Dunham and her equally poor husbandf travel half-way around the world for her to give birth in Kenya, back in the days before deregulation and frequent flier miles? Very pregnant women aren’t even allowed on planes, and certainly not on overseas flights, where they are a long way from medical aid. The problems with your alternate theory are insuperable.

        • Your use of the word “birther” reminded me of a political cartoon where a “Show me the Birth Certificate” birther is being pummeled, while ugly “Keep your hands off my body” anti-birthers are treated like queens..

        • Dissenter says:

          “Birther” is the most commonly-used term. Again, there is no rational basis for alleging that Dunham did what she would have had to have done, due to raw financial considerations compounded by common sense.

          Compared to the birthers’ nonsense, it is far easier to make the case that 9/11 was an inside job. Cui bono?

        • The true evil of your kind is fully shown when you say, “Obama does not have to provide birth certificate evidence if he does not want to, that’s private; however, the burdon of proof is upon you to show us what his birth certificate says.”

          Your evil establishes impossible hurdles and then call them idiots for even asking.

          Truth is that the burdon of proof is upon the candidate running for the office. It cannot be upon anyone else.

        • Dissenter says:

          Rather, it is first-year civil procedure. To proceed, the complainant must establish that s/he has standing, and to this point, every birther lawsuit has been thrown out for a lack of it.

          I don’t pass moral judgment, because I don’t have to.

      • Doug Rodrigues says:

        If anybody is “tin-foiler,” it’s people like you. You have your head buried so far down into the sand that any evidence of ANYTHING negative to Obama is impossible to see. There hasn’t been any authentic birth certificate, just that fraud of a birth certificate shown on the internet. How would that Governor know an authentic birth certificate from a fake? The preponderance of evidence in the field of computer generated images had already proven, beyond a doubt, that Obama’s shown birth certificate is a fake. What does it take for people like you use some common sense? I know, you’d rather make believe that everything is okay, that the DNC isn’t the Party slowly overthrowing the Constitution, that Obama is legally qualified to hold office, that Obama wasn’t raised by Communists and Islamics, that it’s only a rumor that Obama has spent approximately 3 million dollars to date to hide his reasonous background. It’s because of people like you, the “dreamers,” who refuse to see the forest because of the trees blocking the view, that this country will cease to exist as a free country. We’re slowly sliding toward a society of takers. As Margaret Thasher once said, “Socialism is great, until you run out of the other guy’s money.”

        • Dissenter says:

          Occam’s Razor. The set of facts that would have to be true for the birther hypothesis to be true is so improbable, even Peter Stoner would laugh at it.

          As for Obama’s and the DNC’s alleged overthrow of the Constitution, you have yet to persuade me that you have the requisite knowledge base to express an informed opinion. I have no problem with Obama’s defending himself against frivolous lawsuits, in much the same way that your people were defending Sarah Palin.

          I’m too cynical to be a dreamer.

        • Lawsuits against Sarah were friviolous. Lawsuits against Obama are not friviolous as they demand satisfaction of a Constitutional requirement under the law for the office of President of the United States.

          Until an Obama lawsuit ever reaches the discovery stage, you cannot assume any sort of Occam’s Razor or any other pseudo-intellectual mishmash, because you simplely do not have the information needed to make a rationed opinion.

          The Discovery phases of Sarah’s lawsuits exposed the frivality of the lawsuits against Palin.

          The judge dismissed Stambaugh’s lawsuit, holding that the police chief served at the discretion of the mayor, and could be terminated for nearly any reason, even a political one, and ordered Stambaugh to pay Palin’s legal fees

          Palin had 10 ethics complaints filed against her recently. Out of the 10, 6 were considered as baseless and dismissed, while 3 are pending, and one concluded.

        • Dissenter says:

          Actually, it is more accurate to say that they are baseless, as the alternative theory requires the consumption of toxic levels of psylocibin to even understand. More importantly, the complainants lack standing, which is a sine qua non of a successful lawsuit.

          As for the Palin complaints, a dismissal does not necessarily mean that the complaint was frivolous or baseless.

      • Observant_One says:

        Comment by another idiot lawyer. You are a part of our problem.

        • Dissenter says:

          I know … rules of law and logic have a way of disturbing your immaculate misconceptions. Tragic.

    • TexRancher says:

      re: Your question about what do we pay these guys for? We either don’t pay them enough (under the counter) or we don’t threaten them as much as the socialists do!

      • I would have to agree with you. Of course it helps to pack the court from the start. Clinton appointed 2 ultra-liberal Jews and Obama has so far appointed another 2 ultra-liberal Jews. Three of the four are women and one is an Hispanic but all Liberals and all Jews.

    • NobamaNoMo says:

      Yes, you summed it up. What is our next move? Everybody is in on this treasoneous cover up. The American people are screwed.

    • Robert says:

      Count me in Bro!!

    • “”D I T T O”” your comments my brother in arms

    • As for the Supreme Court: Start worrying about a possible appointment of one or more new judges by Obama. They might declare the Constitution unconstitutional. Remember that liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg said other countries should not fashion a constitution after ours. One more judge who doesn’t approve of our Constitution could mean the end of the greatest nation ever known to man.

      • Ruth Bader Gingberg has more allegience to IsraHell than she does to the United States Constitution.

        It should be against the law for dual citizens of another country to sit in judgement of our laws. It certainly is against any set of moral principles known to man.
        IsraHell would certainly not let me sit in judgement of its laws.

    • usluv says:

      I agree and don’t believe for a minute that he legally won this election. Can’t be that many uninformed people in this country.The proof is coming out daily,

    • American says:

      Welcome to the Third Reich!!

    • Jema says:

      We were living under tyranny already with George W. Bush. With the so called Patriot Act that stripped us of our 4th Amendment rights, signing Medicare D–largest packet of welfare under his administration, supporting big government with his No Child Left Behind & NSA–huge gov’t bureaucracies, running up the national deficit enormously, doing nothing to protect the unborn even with a majority in the House and Senate in 1st term. Tyranny was already there my friend. Obama has just picked up where Bush left off and put into high speed continuing the wars (he ran on an anti-war ticket), running up the deficit even more, signing the NDAA into law stripping us of our 6th Amendment rights, forcing Obamacare on us. I know that not everyone has yet the “eyes to see” nor the “ears to hear” to realize that BOTH parties on a NATIONAL level has destroyed our country. But I refuse to be pessimistic. The more and more people wake up to what’s really happening, the more of a chance we have to get our country back.

    • Kelli D says:

      100% agree! I can’t stand this…seems our only defense is writing on anything on the internet which I expect Obama will soon control this too. Why is no one doing anything? Why is the freedom of this country literally wadded up and thrown in the round filing cabinet. Man…just don’t understand!

    • Pam Peck says:

      They are suppose to work for us but they don’t. They are all Socialists riding the money bandwagon. All of Congress is corrupt. We have to find a way to stop funding their Socialists Agenda. They can’t put us all in jail. Protesting as in other countries doesn’t work. We have to stop the money flow. The next things on Obama’s agenda will be to tell America we are in such a bad recession that the only way out is to join the European Union. He will change our currency to Euros and we will become the United States of Europe. Think it won’t happen? The NWO has the plan.

    • Mac33 says:

      He doesn’t have to prove it…. he already proved himself unqualified in his book… and BC. He said his dad is Kenyan British. Not to mention being adopted by an Indonesnian.

    • George Soros “owns” a bunch of the secretarys of state. Especially those in the swing states. I remember back when he was funding putting a bunch in place I wondered “why on earth does this guy care about them”? I’ve since found out nothing the evil old man does is on accident.
      I believe right now with Barry jumping on the UN gun treaty at a time the tension’s this high & as vote fraud being discovered, he’s trying to instigate a civil war. I say this because every time Soros overthrows governments a violent conflict is part of the plan & he’s made how he feels about us very clear over the years. Plus the outrageous number of hollow-point rounds purchased recently by the government leaves little doubt a nefarious plot is afoot.

      - “The destruction of the United States will be the culmination of my life’s work” – George Soros

    • BBB says:

      Welcome to the third world.

    • twj1964 says:

      Yeah, I need a mask to help me breathe with this massive cloud of seditious stench hanging over the U.S.A.

    • Gary Lampkin says:

      I agree. Where was the vetting of his eligability in ’08 or ’12? A legitimate law enforcement investigation concluded that there was probable forged doc.s and more than likely fraud-that requires further investigation at a higher level. I guess we are no better off than those already living in an autocracy where the press is controlled by the gov’t.. Of course, when you have a blind, liberal media and a corrupt Ag’s office, should we be surprised that we are in the land of lawlessness. The gov’t sells guns to the drug cartels and innocent Mexicans are gunned down, along with an American border guard, then the AG is held in contempt of Congress for hiding behind Pres. priviledge??? Why is Holder still in office-where is the public outcry? We have identitygate, fast&furious gate and Benghazigate and no negative press saved a few conservative outlets. This are very strange and curious times- like Alice says, down is up, and up is down. I unfortunately live in NY State, Dem. Congressman, 2 Dem. Senators, Dem. Gov. and Dem. controlled State House/Senate. I think its Vermont that has elected a proud and openly Socialist Congressman or Senator-frankly, I find something like this happening in the US unbelievable(and have just read its estimated that now 20% of our Dem. representatives are socialist leaning). As a proud citizen I have done my due diligence and have written my representatives on many issues and have only got a computer generated reply. Just wasting my time, breath and postage. I used to think, idealistically, that “we the people” were the power…now I believe what many a great thinker(even Stalin)have said, when the press stops doing its job then there is no democracy! What do we do Robalou?? I have no answer other than bend a knee and say a prayer-because we know who ultimately is in charge, and rest assured he is watching what we are doing as individuals, and as a nation. “As in the days of Noah, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” and we are called to endure. That my friend is -”The Christian Solution”.

  2. can you post the links to this information?

  3. I just checked official documents, this is not true… it is more like 67 percent of the people registered voted. hmmm

  4. John Hunt says:

    Given the Ohio has a Republican governor and secretary of state I don’t think this can be true. Otherwise they would be investigating this situation. I don’t think Ohio was due to fraud as much as Republican voters not showing up for some reason.

  5. fliteking says:

    “Voter Fraud: Obama Won %108 of Registered Voters in Ohio County”

    This alone, using a medical model of diagnosis, shows the presence of a much larger problem. Treatment: Another election, and use the military to lock down the vote.

    • Andy says:

      The issue with “locking down the vote” went out the door when we went to computerized voting machines. All it takes is one “minor 50,000 vote “adjustment” at the close of an election (our election votes are now counted by a company out of Spain – I think) and bingo, there went that honest election. How do you suppose there were 108% of eligible voters voting. The only sure way for an election to be “fair and honest” is to use a physical ballot and issue one per voter and verify that voter’s ID. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, go to a totally computerized system in any states that currently do not have it. When you do, your rights are gone! Fight that situation with all you have.

      • afanaglenn says:

        These voting machines have to go. Too easy to corrupt. Paper ballots with verification of results is the only true reflection of voting. Too many people willing to commit fraud just to get their candidate elected. Shouldn’t be this way, but it is.

        • Dissenter says:

          You have to have an auditable process and a standard federal ballot for each congressional district. I was screaming about this as far back as 2000, when it was first showed by Bev Harris that voting machines could be hacked and Katherine Harris, that elections could be stolen via partisan and racist disenfranchisement of voters.

  6. Look, Gov. Romney’s state of MA voted overwhelmingly for Obama! I guess they know something that we didn’t!

    • Lisa Lopes says:

      Oh please, MA is overflowing with libs. The fact that most voters in that state voted for Obama is a no-brainer. No need for voter fraud there.

    • BIG R says:

      We know more about them now, and we know they are a bunch of commie socialist in MA. and OH, and Fl.and N>Y> and and other state this fraud won..

    • Grob says:

      Flawed logic. I’m an unenrolled (independent) voter living in MA. 95% of the time, credentials and aptitude play no part in the outcome of races in this state. Regardless of qualifications and ability, ANY individual with a “D” next to his/her name will win (see Elizabeth Warren’s victory over Scott Brown – she would have been considered a pretty lame candidate, and wouldn’t even have gotten out of the starting blocks, in most states). A Republican Governor used to be able to win every now and then in this state because I think people believed them to be good managers and more apt to produce a healthy economy. But, as far as electing legislators and Presidents is concerned, well…just check out the shamefully biased (and mindless, I might add) voting history in this state.

  7. Bippy Bellito says:

    Just like The New Black Panthers in Philly, Eric Holder (or his replacement) will ignore these crimes. We have been duped again by this most racist of presidents. Obam is a Thug who will go down in history as a truly Evil Man.

  8. Nonni says:

    This no surprise of stealing and fraud for Obama and many Americans like myself know this happened especially when Romney lost by less than one percent. This is an unbelievable tragedy that should have never happened in America.

  9. Patrick Henry says:

    obama has NEVER proven he should be in office in the first place. NEVER has shown a REAL Birth Certificate nor his college transcripts, Social Security Card Number and how he got a number from Conn to be begin with. He is nothing more than a fraud!!!

    • chuckster says:

      People dont care what his resume looks like, if it were presented they wouldnt care, when he speaks without his teleprompter he sounds like Emer Phudd, no offense to Mr. Phudd but Bozo is a complete moron

  10. dad666 says:

    You mean you think the dumocraps rigged the voting process to win the elections????
    We neede anational review by independent sources to examine this entire election
    and we need voter registration and poll approvels for voting laws and teeth in the. The people in charge of these aread should be removed and prosecuted under existing law. They have allowed the destruction of our voting process and as a result will put this election in peril of a total recall process and many law suits. The worst part is the loss of all voter confidence in the existing system.

    • chuckster says:

      If the people complain enough about fraud in the election process Bozo will appoint a investigation committee and make a speech then we all will be so happy that our rights are finally being upheld

      • afanaglenn says:

        Some levity. Thank you. I think we all needed that. :)

      • Searcher98 says:

        I’m afraid it is already too late.

        • It’s never too late………….start a petition to re-check all votes cast for this 2012 presidential election…. and you will be surprised at how many people join in. Soros took over the vote counting…..insuring that the illegal puppet would win…..actually he probably lost….BIG!!! Romney should be taking the oath of office…..and we know that we will finally have someone in our White House who will follow our Constitution and who will not put his feet up on the presidential desk. Only a low life would do that!!!

  11. Robalou01 says:

    So now what happens? Why should I have to do anything Odumbo says?

  12. C Tony says:

    And if this is true just what can we do about it?

  13. Will says:

    Will something be done about the voter fraud?

  14. Duhhh and you’re surprised BECAUSE ???

  15. uh… like I had said: voting in pseudo-elections is not getting it done; and what is the punk^ss “Re-PUNK-licans” going to do about – NOTHING AS USUAL, put their tail between their legs and slink off to oblivion, like this dead Republic has done! It’s time for the conservative states to suceed from this Godless communist regime – let’s see which side will prosper!