Jon Christian Ryter's Conservative World

Eagle

Internet Articles (2017)
Internet Articles (2016)
Internet Articles (2015)
Internet Articles (2014)
Internet Articles (2013)
Internet Articles (2012)
Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)
Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

20 years

ince the infamous "temporary" Section 4 and 5 in Lyndon Johnson's Voting Right Act of 1965, the social progressive left has been crafting laws that would legally allow them to steal both Houses of Congress and the White House—and keep them. Except for the eight years Dwight D. Eisenhower occupied the White House, the Democrats controlled every facet of the federal government since Mar. 6, 1933 through Johnson's five year reign. They had gotten used to being the boss, and they wanted to keep it that way. On Mar. 18, 1965, acting on behalf of Dr. Martin Luther King on orders from Johnson, Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield [D-MT] and Sen. Everett Dirkson [D-IL] introduced S.1564, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 USC §§. 1973-1973aa-6). The bill remained deadlocked in the House as of July 27, until two Northern moderates, Harold Daniel Donohue [D-MA] and Peter Wallace Rodino [D-NJ] cut a deal with the Senate leadership to make Section 4 and 5 of the bill temporary, limiting it to 5 years. Johnson's Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach sent a confidential letter to Dr. King, seeking his approval of Donohue's and Rodino's adding a sunset clause to Section 5. Section 5 opens with a reference to Section 4(a), which should have been part of the sunset clause. Four(a) began: "To assure that the right of citizens of the United States to vote is not denied or abridged on account of race or color, no citizen shall be denied the right to vote in any Federal, State or local election because of his failure to comply with any test or devise in any State..."

The special provisions of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 applied to 11 States including seven which actually made sense: Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Virginia. If there were no civil rights actions filed in Federal court by any of those States on election law violations, section 5 of the law was nullified. In 1970, Congress extended Section 5 by claiming that although no court actions had been filed they felt a need to protect minority voters in the affected States. President Richard Nixon signed it back into law. In 1975 President Gerald Ford extended Section 5 for seven more years. In 1982 Ronald Reagan did a swap-meet trade with House Speaker Tip O'Neill and signed the legislation that extended Section 5 for an additional 48 years, until 2031. It was a swap Reagan willingly traded to extend the life of Social Security for the same period of time. In 1983, the Democrats had a veto-proof lock on both Houses of Congress.

Reagan wanted to reduce benefits for Social Security recipients who retired before age 65. The Senate rejected Reagan's proposal 96 to 0. The House rejected the measure with a large bipartisan majority. To get the reduced pension at age 62, Reagan and Tip O'Neill, with the help of soon-to-become Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, Congress raised the retirement age from 65 to 67. The Reagan-O'Neill plan which the left hated, passed in both Houses and Reagan, who extended Section 5 until 2031, prevented a massive tax hike on low-to-middle income Social Security wage earners. The Reagan tax plan called for the adjustment to full benefits at age 67 to be phased in during 2027. The change from 65 to 67 now takes affect in 2022. At that time, early retirement will begin at age 65.

Was Reagan's compromise good for conervatives? Not in my book. Based entirely on the verbiage of the law, "...no citizen shall be denied the right to vote in any Federal, State or local election because of his failure to comply with any test or devise in any State..." Section 5 made it appear that Jim Crow laws still exist in the United States. They don't. Sen. Allen J. Allender [D-LA] declared on the floor of the US Senate when the bill was debated in 1965, that "...S.1564 violated not only the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights."

Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina who switched his party affiliation from Democrat to Republican in 1964 eulogized the US Senate in a floor speech as "...the final resting place of the Constitution and the rule of law for it is here," he concluded, "that they will have buried with shovels of emotions under the pleas of expediency in the year of our Lord, 1965." Democrats and Republicans who voted against the Voting Act of 1965 saw its enactment as a "federal dictatorship" on the voting process. Because Section 5 (and conversely, section 4 which is tied to 5) should have expired on Aug. 6. 1970, or been vetoed by President Richard Nixon, or expired on Aug. 6, 1975 or been vetoed by President Gerald Ford, or expired on Aug. 6, 1982 or been vetoed by President Ronald Reagan has remained in force so that the Chief US District Court Judge for Northern Ohio (an Obama appointee) pulled rank and temporarily assigned herself to the Southern District of Ohio in order to hear the case filed by the ACLU, SEIU, ACORN and the US Attorney General against the State of Ohio based on what they construed to be a violation of Section 5—requiring minorities to produce a photo ID to prove they were who they claimed to be. This was, in the minds of the accusers, a form of racism.

Because the federal court could not find any Section 4/Section 5 violations, the judge ruled Ohio's photo ID law could go into affect—in 2013. Her decision cost Gov. Mitt Romney approximately 6 million votes. Alabama and Texas' voter ID law was struck under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Law. The court will allow Alabama's law to go into effect after it seeks clearance. At the moment, Alabama's law is scheduled to go into effect in 2014. Texas' law has been denied clearance by the US District Court for the District of Columbia twice now. Wisconsin's voter law was declared unconstitutional by Dane County, Wisconsin Circuit Court Judge Richard Niess who issued a permanent injunction to block it. Wisconsin is appealing his decision. In my view, no county judge in the United States of America should have the jurisdiction to rule on a federal statute. The US District Court for the District of Columbia approved South Carolina's voter ID law but delayed its implementation until 2013 to make sure it could not be used in the Election of 2012. Pennsylvania's voter ID law, like Ohio's was postponed until 2013 because the judge did not feel enough people had photo IDs to allow it to be the yardstick by which voters were measured in 2012. (Which, of course, was pure rhetoric since everyone in the United States who has a driver's license has a photo ID. And, if they don't have one, more time3s than not its because they can't prove they're a legal resident in the United States, or they lack a permanent address which means they belong to no voting precinct. New Hampshire and Virginia's photo ID laws went into effect for the Election of 2012.

Solely because of vote theft by Democrats, thirty-three States enacted voter ID laws to keep their elections honest. Or so they thought. Thirteen states now have voter ID laws that will be in effect for the midterm election in 2014: Florida, George, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Virginia. Five States were denied the right by either a federal or State court from implementing their photo ID system. They are Alabama, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin. Fifteen states are still hanging in limbo due to the temporary law enacted by social progressive Lyndon Johnson in 1965 with a five year shelf life that could have, and should have been vetoed by three different Republican Presidents when the leftwing-controlled Congress renewed the punitive ban only because those States traditionally voted conservative.

The American people lost the Election of 2012 specifically because, in a stupid moment, on bad advise from three Republican domestic policy advisers: Ceceilia Munoz for Richard Nixon in 1970; James Cannon for Gerald Ford in 1975; and Bruce Bartlett in 1982 for Ronald Reagan who, in 1980 said that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a humiliation to the South. How did these presidents, who understood party politics so well, get so stupid two years into their first terms? In Reagan's case, he was doing some fancy horse-trading with House Speaker Tip O'Neil when he signed on to the idea. Reagan lost the horse race. Makes you wonder how the second best president in the history of the United States got hog-swoggled so badly. Where Nixon and Ford only allowed the left to register minorities with no proof of residency for five years, Reagan surrendered the right to waive the verification of voter eligibility of minorities voters until 2031. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 still has 18 years left of its five year sentence. The 5 year punitive punishment on the South will have been a 66 year sentence if it's finally allowed to expire in 2031. How did we ever get so stupid?

But a more important question is, why isn't the left, who would like their followers to believe totalitarianism is freedom, considered to be more stupid than the right? Let me tell you why. Whether they like the political agenda of the social progressive leadership or not, the left sticks together because they know, when they win, they all get to share the spoils from which they receive handsome quid pro quos in the form of campaign contributions and lucrative speaking engagement fees for protecting the environment by reducing the carbon dioxide (which creates the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat). How did the social progressive ever get so stupid, and still prosper? Because we're apparently even more stupid than they. We think if our candidates are not directly related to Jesus Christ, we shouldn't vote for them.

In 2007 Sen. Hillary Clinton was positioning herself not only as the Democratic front-runner but as the only truly viable candidate to replace Republican President George W. Bush at the helm of the Ship of State. Bush-43 wasn't looking ahead to the 2008 race when he kept Vice President Dick Cheney—bad heart and all—on his ticket in 2004. He was placating a friend not looking out for the nation. My first choice for Bush-43's GOP running mater in 2004 was the GOP's pick to give Republican National Committee's keynote speech that year—Sen. Zell Miller [D-GA].

I know, now you're asking that question about me: "How'd he get that stupid?" Stop a minute. Senator and former Democratic Gov. Miller was, without a doubt, the most patriotically honest conservative Democrat in the United States. Compare Miller's conservative bonafide with the Republican who "won" the GOP presidential nomination in 2008—RINO Sen. John McCain who took the job offered to him by the princes of industry and barons of banking and business in 2008 to run as the "designated GOP loser." I ran into Sen. Miller at CPAC in Washington, DC in 2007 and we had a chance to talk about the Election of 2008 for a few minutes. I suggested he get in the race, telling him I was convinced he would win. He reminded me this was going to be Hillary's race, and he doubted that any Democrat could take the nomination from her. I told him I wasn't suggesting he run as a Democrat, but as a Republican. I reminded him he was conservative enough to pull the right and enough of the Reagan Democrats to win. All Hillary would pull would be the feminists and the social progressives.. Miller got a funny look on his face, then grinned, shaking his head as he said, "My wife would kill me."
----- "You mean for running for President?" I asked.
----- "No," he replied, "for becoming a Republican. I was born a Democrat and I'll die one. My wife would divorce me if I became a Republican."

We shook hands and he sauntered off, chuckling. Sen. Miller couldn't have been more wrong about Hillary's chances as history would show. I wonder if he'd have changed his mind about running if he knew that an illegal alien who was born as a Muslim British citizen in Kenya, and whose Muslim stepfather traded his British birthright to raise his stepson as an Indonesian Muslim?

As the nation's first Democratic primary results began to trickle in on Jan. 8, 2008, Hillary Clinton knew she was going to have a good night in New Hampshire. The exit polls said she was going to win. She was upbeat as the number began popping up on the tote board. She lost the Iowa Caucus on Jan. 3. She came in third, trailing Obama and Sen. John Edwards. But, she had just learned, she lost because the Obama Campaign had been able to subvert caucus procedures by getting preference cards premarked for Obama. When Hillary supporters tried to get preference cards to vote in the caucuses, they were told by the Obama staffers who had somehow been credentialed as Caucus Security, that there were no preference cards left (although Obama supporters were still able to get all they wanted). That would be the same ploy used in the Nevada caucus on Jan. 19. Only, this time, Hillary was ready, and while the theft was taking place, the Clinton Campaign was able to provide the evidence of wrongdoing to the Democratic National Committee. Nothing happened. The DNC simply ignored her complaint.

Meanwhile, back to New Hampshire. As I watched what was about to happen on Fox News as Hillary's lead over Obama increased, one of Clinton's campaign field managers whispered something in her ear. Immediately, the smile vanished and the color drained from her face like the movie script that had suddenly gone from Technicolor to black & white. You'd have thought someone shoved a sharp knife into her heart. Hillary plopped down in a folding chair at a white cloth covered table where other campaign workers were watching the tote board and, with a straight face that revealed nothing, tears welled in her eyes.

What horrible thing did Hillary's campaign field manager just tell her? They told her that as she was winning the nation's first primary with a three point margin over Barack Obama, the Kenyan from Indonesia snagged all of Hillary's financial backers. Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase had just pulled their lines of credit from Hillary as, midstream, they decided to back George Soros' horse in the 2008 race. The money taken from Clinton's coffers was transferred to Obama's as he lost the New Hampshire primary to Hillary Clinton, 36.45% to 39.09%.

The winner of the New Hampshire Primary was on her own. All she had left to fight with was the money in her own pockets. While I knew something traumatic had just happened to the Clinton Campaign, it took me two days to follow the money. How did the Rockefeller-Morgan bankers get so stupid? They were apparently listening to a guy named Rush Limbaugh. We should be asking how the self-described smartest radio talk show in America got so stupid. Rush let his fear—yes, his fear—of Hillary Clinton get in the way of his otherwise brilliant intellect. Had Rush's investigators done their due diligence they would have learned what Sheriff Joe Arpaio uncovered in 2012—that Obama's first birth certificate was a pathetic, amateurish fraud and that police lab forensics proved that his second one—the one that actually belonged to the dead baby Virginia Sunhahara—was not much better. But even though I suspect Rush knew the birth certificate chronology, I doubt that Limbaugh would speak it on air. Rush still remembers his old afternoon network radio program and the Orange Juice commercial contract he lost for attacking the Clintons. If you recall, Rush completed his network contract with his program airing in a post-midnight slot while most of America was sleeping. Back on top again, Rush isn't going to make that mistake again. We can't speak for every conservative talk show host, but we know Rush isn't that stupid.

If you wonder how the American people—particularly conservative Americans—got so stupid its due almost entirely to three reasons. First, when we listen to newscasters on liberal-land (i.e., television network news or the behemoth liberal newspapers) we believe "most" of the news they say is "fit to print." Second,Democrats and Republicans are two peas in the same pod. Far too many conservatives will only vote for third party candidates who are not contaminated with party politics (and it matters little that they can't get elected because the voter believes voting his conscience is more important than than voting for any candidate who isn't directly related to Jesus Christ.). And finally, consider the voter who is guided by his own moral code of ethics. If the views of the candidates seeking office doesn't dovetail with his personal views (forget whether or not those views are correct), he will sit out the election before he compromises his values. It's not his fault if someone like Obama wins because he didn't vote for him. The funny thing is, that's what 75% of the voters who voted in 2008 said. "I didn't vote for Obama." Yet, he was the guy who ended up with the keys to the White House. If that's true, then how did we all get so stupid? Because if 75% of us didn't vote for him, who did? Let's peel back the layers of history and look.

But before I show you how Obama did it, let me tell you what you did that made it possible for him to do it—not just in 2008 but also in 2012. You surrendered something very important to the social progressives. So important, in fact, that you cannot win a national election without it. Or rather, without them. What them? A paper ballot and a #2 pencil.

The paper ballot and the #2 pencil is what kept elections honest. Without them, history will likely confirm that George W. Bush was the last conservative president to reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC—and he almost didn't make it in 2000. It might shock you to know this, but in 2008 Sen. John McCain won the presidential election but lost the White House. In 2012 Gov. Mitt Romney won the presidential election but lost the White House.

Do I finally have your attention? If I do, promise yourself—and your family—that you are going to do more than say, "Wow!" Pass this along to everyone on your email list. Promise your family that you will do everything you can to make sure the voters in your county/congressional district/State will exact pledges from those they support to outlaw electronic voting machines and return the paper ballots and #2 pencils. Promise your family that elected officials who break that promise will be recalled and thrown out of office if paper ballots and #2 pencils do not replace electronic voting machines by November, 2016.

If you think I'm stupid, let's take a historic stroll through the Elections of 2008 and 2012. If you take that walk with me, you will understand how it is that all of us got so stupid. Remember this, too. It wasn't your fault in 2008. But since I've told America how Obama stole the election of 2008 at least a hundred times in a hundred different ways since Nov. 28, 2009, the Election of 2012 is your fault. Fool me once, your fault. Fool me twice, my fault. If you let the social progressives do it again, you will no longer have a nation. You will be living in Gulag America. There will be no 1787 Constitution, no 1787 Bill of Rights, no 1787 freedom of religion, no 1787 freedom of speech, and owning a weapon of any type will be a federal crime. Because if Obama pulls off the coup he will attempt (and attempt he will), you—just like the starving Russian proletariat in 1917 and the jobless German workers in 1933—you will be asking, "How did that happen?" What they—and you—should be asking today is, "How did we get so stupid to let it happen?"

Since the days when Franklin D. Roosevelt loomed larger than life in social progressive America, Roosevelt, like Abraham Lincoln who did the same thing from March 4, 1861 until April 15, 1865, FDR became a dictator from March 6, 1933 until his death on April 12, 1945. Neither man had any intention of surrendering the presidency. Only death wrested power from their gnarly grips. A third such man resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Oddly, the black man in the Oval Office today more closely resembles Lincoln—a man whose rabid disdain for the slave population in America was erased by social progressive historians, just as Obama's rabid disdain for the White race is concealed by the liberal media who refuse to mention Obama's contemptuous renunciation of the white blood that courses through his own veins. While the left consistently refers to Lincoln as the nation's purest champion of the dictum "all men are created equal," Ebony magazine editor Lerone Bennett, Jr. noted that "...on at least 14 occasions between 1854 and 1860 Lincoln said unambiguously that he believed the Negro race was inferior to the White race [in a speech] In Galesburg,"

Bennett said that Lincoln raised the question about inferior races, saying, "Who are the inferior race? Negroes and Mexicans, whom he called mongrells.'" On the subject of emancipation, Lincoln said, "Free them and make them politically and socially our equal? My own feelings will not admit this. We cannot, then, make them our equal." Lincoln's "racist equal" today is Barack Obama. While Obama keeps his Liberation Theology pretty much under wraps when he is in the proximity to a microphone, his wife is much more outspoken in her own personal views of "whitey" and the nonsense of paying homage to the Stars and Stripes. Which, of course, is why Obama designed his own flag (although he does not yet have the courage to hoist it over the White House). But it's an accurate statement to say that, in almost every way (minus the beard), Obama is a photographic mirror reflection of our 16th President.

In the book "Lincoln Unmasked" by Lincoln scholar and Loyola College professor Thomas J. DiLorenzo, we learn that our Civil War president, like the fearless "leader" who usurped the victory of Seal Team Six (but denies any culpability in Benghazi because, at the moment, he was campaigning for reelection on the claim that he had not only killed Osama bin Laden but that he had pulled the teeth of al Qaeda and they were now on the run), also believed he had the unilateral authority to kill civilians on US soil if he suspects them of plotting a terrorist act.. Obama's decision was based on a Homeland Security assessment that decided that far right white conservatives—particularly former military personnel and Tea Party advocates—pose a political security threat to the United States. Posse Comitatus [force of the country] (18 USC § 1385) was enacted solely because of Lincoln's abuse of the military to harass or arrest private citizens not only by occupying Union troops in the South during "reconstruction," but in the North as well during the conflict. Lincoln had no problem arresting and imprisoning, without due process of law, "Southern sympathizers" in the North who spoke out against Lincoln's waging war on Americans in the South exactly as John Adams arrested and jailed American citizens for speaking out against the policies of the Federalists in 1797. The property of Northerners during the Civil War was seized by the Internal Revenue Service (which has existed since 1862) and was sold at public auction, with the receipts going directly into the U.S. Treasury in the same way John Adams did with those convicted of violating the Aliens and Sedition Act of 1797.

Although the Aliens and Sedition Act of 1797 was nullified by the Kentucky and Virginia Resolves and was deemed to be lawfully repealed by the Supreme Court, that is the law Lincoln and the Jacobins used to suspend the Bill of Rights—particularly the right of habeus corpus—and lock up those who spoke against the Union, the Jacobins or Lincoln himself. When the House of Representatives censored Lincoln for invading the rights of the People, Lincoln dissolved Congress. When Lincoln illegally and unconstitutionally suspended habeus corpus, US Supreme Court Justice Roger B. Taney threatened to prosecute any judge—local, county, State or federal—who violated the Bill of Rights. Lincoln—like Obama—simply used the power of the pen and created special courts which answered to the Executive, trumping the judiciary and effectively becoming a dictator. Lincoln signed an illegal arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the United States when Taney ruled that only the Congress, not the President, can suspend habeas corpus. . Now you understand Obama's penchant for unconstitutional Executive Orders. And why he is ignoring a Congress which still believes in the rule of law.

Because Lincoln arbitrarily erased it, the Writ of Habeas Corpus simply did not exist in the United States of America from 1861 to 1865. When you were jailed, you stayed jailed even if no formal charges were ever filed. Which, likely, was a good thing because when they were, the accused was generally marched up the 13-steps to the hangman's knot, or he was led to a pockmarked brick wall to face a firing squad.

You might ask what was wrong with the American people in that shameful era of America's past. Were they that stupid not to realize that, even fractured, its government did not have the right to suspend the Bill of Rights? Simply stated, it wasn't a matter of what was right or wrong. It was a more simple reality. The men with the guns and the judges held sway over the power over the government. Honest men weren't stupid—they were afraid. Afraid of being dragged off in the middle of the night and hung; or stood against a wall and shot without a trial. Or, after being beaten senseless, they awakened the following morning chained to the wall in the basement of the US Treasury building and whipped until they revealed where their life savings were hidden. That is the unedited reality of "Honest Abe Lincoln."

Southern sympathizers who refused to take an oath of allegiance to the Jacobin Lincoln were either jailed and held for trial, or if they were belligerent enough, they were summarily executed without evidence of any wrongdoing—and without a civilian trial. Those who escaped the gallows or a firing squad were imprisoned. The Bill of Rights as we know it was suspended by Jacobin judges. The inherent rights of our forefathers were now conditional rights based on the whims of government.

Now you understand why Abraham Lincoln is an iconic president in the eyes of Barack Obama. Obama and Lincoln had one other thing in common. Neither Lincoln nor Obama gave any outward signs which affirmed to others they were a Christians. Lincoln was not a religious man and practice no religion ideology. But both men, Lincoln and Obama, were masterful at invoking Christian rhetoric in speeches to Christian believers. Obama was equally as good as invoking Islamic rhetoric when speaking to Muslim audiences. His knowledge of Islam was deeper, and he appears much more comfortable praising Allah than Jesus Christ, the Lion of Judah.

While Lincoln never joined a church in his life, the Obamas joined Rev. Jeremian Alvesta Wright, Jr.'s extremely racist liberation theology Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Obama and Wright were close until the media began looking at the theology of Jeremiah Wright and suddenly, Obama was appalled, outraged and saddened by the anti-Jewish, anti-White ideology that came from Wright's pulpit. At least, when interviewed, he pretended he had never those anti-white epitaphs uttered by his pastor, although Wright uttered them in every service he preached.

While Obama distanced himself from Wright to escape the anti-white stigma by association, apparently David Rockefeller, who was one of Obama's key donors in both 2008 and 2012, didn't find Wright's twisted racist rhetoric offensive since the Rockefeller Foundation awarded him a Rockefeller Fellowship. Simpson College, which is also funded with Rockefeller money, awarded Wright with its first "Carver Medal" in January, 2008. The medal supposedly exemplified the same commitment and vision of George Washington Carver. On May 1, 2008 Northwestern University withdrew its invitation for Wright to receive an honorary doctorate in view of the Wright's anti-white racist penchant.

The leftwing media made sure they distanced the theoretically "shocked and dismayed" Obamas from Rev. Wright's flock even though as the controversy was growing, Michelle Obama made her famous "Whitey" speech from Wright's pulpit. Once Wright removed Michelle Obama's video from Trinity's archive, and the residue of the original copied by all of the anti-Obama "fans" circulated through Google and YouTube were wiped clean, the Spic 'n Span team simply denied it ever existed. I was one of hundreds of thousands of Americans who actually watched it. Those who saw it know they saw it. Perhaps Obama can convince the moderate left they didn't see what they saw. Or that some horrible rightwinger managed to manipulate the voiceover and the "Whitey" video was a fake—just like Obama's first and second birth certificates, his Social Security card and his Selective Service card.

But when the left tells each other those lies, the only people they fool are themselves, or the simple minded imbeciles who spend their lives watching liberal-land news. It appears the American people are not quite as stupid as the left thinks we are. But, that being the case, why is it that we keep acting like we are?

The Federal Election Commission Report on the Election of 2008—briefly posted on WhiteHouse.gov as an arrogant rebuttal to California lawyer Dr. Orly Taitz's Quo Warranto law suit, filed in 2009. Dr. Taitz thought it would force Barack Hussein Obama to produce an actual genuine US birth certificate. A Quo Warranto lawsuit demands the defendant of the action to produce evidence showing by what authority he claimed the right to occupy the Oval Office. Instead of posting a US birth certificate—even the counterfeit Aug. 4, 1961 birth certificate that belonged to a newborn baby Virginia Sunahara, who died a day later—Obama has thus far posted two fake ones. But, I guess, that's what you do when the only real birth certificate you actually possess is Kenyan..

On Nov. 28, 2009 I was perusing the White House website looking for a nonspecific piece of information that should have been there. Instead of finding what I was looking for, I found the 2008 FEC election report instead. It was Obama's way of insolently telling Taitz that the authority he possessed came from winning the Election of 2008. The only problem with the document he posted, which was compiled by the Bush-43 FEC, was that it was completely accurate. The FEC document acknowledged there were 169 million registered voters in the United States. In 2008, the Bush-43 FEC reported that 56.9% of those registered voters voted. Interestingly, the document posted on whitehouse.gov had a hole in it. A literal hole. Artfully removed. The space where the number of registered voters who voted was conspicuously void. Someone neatly cut the number out of that space. That, of course, forced me to go look up the original form on the FEC website. In 2008, 95,992,000 registered voters voted in the presidential election. The problem is there were 132,618,580 ballots in the ballot box, or 35,626,580 too many votes.

In 2012, 57.7% of the registered voters—or 90,682,968 Americans— delivered 126,985,809 votes. There were 36,299,841 more votes than voters. In 2008 not one media source reported that there were 35,626,580 more votes than voters. Not one media pundit noted that Sen. John McCain won the Election of 2008, but was denied the White House. In 2012, Gov. Mitt Romney won the election, but not one media pundit took the time to compare the number of voters with the number of votes cast. They agreed with the left who claimed it would be impossible for any presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican, to steal enough votes to impact the outcome of the election. The pundits noted, without comment, only that Obama won and that, by itself, regardless how he got those votes, gave him a mandate to force his social progressive agenda on the American people. No one compared voters with votes, nor that the Democrats stole the election using rigged electronic voting machines and, in doing so, defrauded John McCain in 2008, just as they denied Romney the prize he had honestly won in 2012.

Instead, the news pundits—both right and left, including Fox News—claimed that, in the end, Romney lost because Obama, like he did in 2008, mesmerized the voters. The mainstream media insisted Romney lost because he refused to give Hispanic voters access to the vote through amnesty and a fast track to citizenship for illegals. Romney also failed to campaign for the women's vote. Nor did he butt-kiss to the anti-gun crowd. Romney didn't lose in 2012 because he didn't win the Hispanic vote, or the women's vote, or the antigun vote or the homosexual vote. Romney lost because of the crooked electronic voting machine vote.

The Obama-aide who posted the FEC report on whitehouse.gov in 2009 used a mat knife to cut out the number of registered voters who voted in what will likely be the last presidential election to actually document accurate numbers as required by the Constitution—unless the American people get off their lazy butts and take their country back.

How do we do that? First we repeal the National Voters Registration Act of 1993 which was the catalyst that allowed the registering of non-eligible voters to vote in presidential elections. Second, we repeal the Help America Vote Act of 2002 [HAVA] which mandated that all voting systems be replaced by electronic voting machines nationwide. According to HAVA, vote fraud happens in voting systems where voters must either mark a ballot (paper ballot and a #2 pencil) or use a stylus to punch a chad to indicate their choice (which is what Al Gore did trying to steal the State of Florida in 2000 during the Florida Chad dance when he tried to rig the results of the 2000 election). Two of the systems were created specifically to steal elections, the third—the paper ballot and the #2 pencil—was outlawed because it's the only fraud-proof system we've ever had.

That's why the election thieves needed to get rid of the only voting system that they could not outfox. The system worked well from April 30, 1789 until Jan 20, 1961. The Daley Dead first appeared during the Kennedy-Nixon race, providing Kennedy with a win over Nixon. We need to throw out every electronic voting machine there is and return to paper ballots and #2 pencils. When our election votes are once again cast with #2 pencils on paper, the social progressives will no longer be able to manufacture the votes they need to steal elections by manipulating the electronic voting machines, which is how the left took control of Congress in 2006, how Obama won in 2008, how he left held the Senate in 2010 and how Romney lost in 2012. Barack Obama never won more than 34 million votes in either election. He stole the rest.

In 2012 Obama, an illegal alien unqualified to hold even a mayoral role in a deserted village— except perhaps in Kenya or Indonesia—decided because he managed to steal two elections without the people any wiser—that the people were stupid, and because he stole the White House, he "owned" the federal government and everything that came with it—including the Federal Election Commission and the right to manipulate the elections like any third world dictator. Which is one of the reasons the Constitution requires the federal government to tabulate all facets of the voting process and report all of those numbers to the American people. Because the Bush-43 Administration tabulated the Election of 2008, it was easy to see the theft—all you had to do was open your eyes and look. In 2012, Obama released all of the information he was required to post. The only problem is, unlike the document used in 2008 which included all of the required statistics on one form, the data from 2012 was was scattered, piecemeal, in a variety of releases. Obama complied with the law, but finding the results was a much harder task.

Unless we are willing to surrender our nation, our way we of life, and the nature of our existence with respect to life, liberty and the pursuit of freedom, we—the People—need to rescind the power from those we elected who have chosen to abuse the authority which we temporarily entrusted to them. If we do not, the elected and appointed servants of the People will become the masters of us all.