You are here: Home / Archives for Activist Judges

Addressing Voter Fraud – A 14 Point Plan For 2013

January 10, 2013 by 36 Comments

voter fraud Addressing Voter Fraud – A 14 Point Plan for 2013

The sheer number of voter fraud stories in the 2012 elections the media refuses to investigate is staggering. Hundreds of legitimate concerns potentially impacting thousands of votes have been both raised and ignored. There are, however, many examples proven and confirmed by Mainstream Media sources. They are well-documented examples such as:

-160 counties across the U.S. have more voters on their voter registration rolls than live voters living in their district.

-Well over 100 % of registered voters casting votes, and statistical “miracles” of 100% of 59 precincts (known as divisions in Philadelphia) voting unanimously for only one candidate.

Please note that while these statistics may seem like a small percentage of the vote, they are in the crucial swing states. These “small” issues can decide the election outcome when they occur in such states that carry critical electoral votes.

Currently, only three states require proof of U.S. citizenship to vote: Georgia, Alabama, and Kansas. Arizona’s attempt to enact citizenship proof was invalidated by the U.S appeals court in San Francisco prior to the 2012 election. The invalidation came after the people of Arizona approved the requirement in a 2004 vote. The U.S. Supreme Court is to hear arguments early in 2013 and make it’s ruling in June 2013 on the issue of all States’ ability to enact such laws. That same 9th Circuit Court stated that a 1993 law bars the Arizona registration requirement. The federal measure establishes a national voter application and requires every state to “accept and use” it. The law “does not give states room to add their own requirements” to the federal application. The 1993 law was known as the Motor Voter Law, a separate provision that requires states to let residents register to vote when applying for a driver’s license. County Supervisors of elections in Florida claim these Motor Voter laws prevent them from verifying citizenship. The only way for them to investigate is if they receive a tip, according to an NBC-2 investigative report.

Additionally, only fifteen states require photo ID; and thirty five states have no photo requirements. Again, no proof of citizenship is required in the combined total of forty seven of the states.

The refusal of activist judges and certain states to require ID to vote is disenfranchising to all US citizens who vote legally. Fraudulent votes cancel out real votes.

Americans from all political parties have spoken in an overwhelming majority for the need of proof of identity when voting.

A poll by the Washington Post in 2012 indicates that “Almost three-quarters of all Americans support the idea that people should have to show photo identification to vote, even though they are nearly as concerned about voter suppression as they are about fraud in presidential elections, according to a new Washington Post poll.”

“Q: In your view, should voters in the United States be required to show official, government-issued photo identification — such as a drivers license — when they cast ballots on Election Day, or shouldn’t they have to do this? 74% – Should be required vs. 23% Should not be required.”

If the Democrat Party leaders were truly interested in a legitimate election, they would have advocated to give out free ID to all those who they claim would be “disenfranchised” if forced to prove their identity to vote. The UN election observers/poll watchers in 2012 made comments about how surprised they were that the U.S. voting system is purely based on trust and that voters are not required to prove their identity.

The fact is, the Dems are not interested in a “true vote.” What exists today is an organized strategy edge they are not willing to give up; it gives them just enough edge to win elections. Why is there a propensity and advocacy by some to give away almost everything for free, except for legitimate ID’s? In our society, a valid ID is a necessity to function; it is a basic need of every citizen.

Conservatives are not typically the party of free handouts. However, in this case, I recommend a national program of free Photo ID for anyone who claims they can’t afford one. This would be a program funded by the federal government to all states.

This program would end the debate over a “poll tax.”

1) The program would have guidelines to meet and restrict standards of proof of citizenship prior to issuing the ID. The ID’s must be issued at least 100 days prior to any election in order to be used in an election to vote. This is to allow a bi-partisan team to complete an examination of all ID’s issued before elections. This bi-partisan team will consist of certified “ID watchers” from both political parties; this program would work much the same as poll watchers. The “ID watchers” would be given complete access to all documents used to issue ID’s, including the photos to match the age of the ID holder.

2) Each respective political party could promote new government-issued IDs the same way they drive voter registrations. They would be responsible for ensuring their constituents become legally able to vote in elections. There would no longer be claims of disenfranchisement of anyone.

3) If any ID is found to be issued fraudulently, the individual in question would be flagged at their precinct and removed from the voter rolls; and criminal charges would be filed. If any ID issuer in the state’s ID center is found to be issuing ID’s that are not accompanied by legitimate proof of citizenship, serious federal criminal penalties would be charged.

4) The department that would address these criminal sanctions would be be run by a bipartisan team, not the DOJ, and have 100% transparency. This transparency would be available to the public via a website. All discrepancies would be reported on the website for anyone to review. All questionable documents would be scanned and available on the website; with the individual ID applicant name redacted, protocols would be developed to create a check and balance system.

These would be federal dollars well spent. The program would cost virtually nothing, as there is almost no legal citizen in this country who does not already have a government-issued state ID. However, the number of legitimate voters who are being disenfranchised by fraud canceling their vote is likely beyond our belief. We have only scratched the surface of the fraud reports.

5) All states should be required to end all ID-issuing to non-citizens without labeling them as such.

A driver’s license is all it takes to vote. Some states are issuing drivers’ licenses to non-citizens, which enables them to go to the polls and cast votes. I suggest that drivers’ licenses issued to non- citizens must be stamped on the front with any politically correct name the left finds to be inoffensive. Of course, they will find the stamp offensive in and of itself. However, we must find a way to allow only US citizens to vote. Many states currently issue a non-standard ID for those under the legal drinking age. We propose the same for non-U.S. citizens.

Any state issuing ID’s to non-citizens within a margin of more than .5% without marking those ID’s appropriately would lose its ability to cast electoral votes in a general election. It would also lose its ability to send representatives from their state to participate in the federal government for a minimum of 1 year.

6) The double vote: Prior to the elections and after elections, a cross-reference list is to be compiled of all who are registered or have voted in all of the states. Currently, there is no such requirement. If anyone was found to have voted more than once, within or outside of their state, severe criminal charges would be imposed, to include mandatory jail time. Anyone who is registered in more than one state or county or precinct will be sent a notification to choose their precinct; if there is no response, they will be removed from all rolls other than their last identifiable and known address. Conspiracy to commit voter fraud by any party official advocating or directing others on how to circumvent the system would also be prosecuted in a similar manner to the full extent of the law.

7) Absentee ballots: Choosing to vote absentee is a right that is imperative to retain. This right also creates concern, as it is the ripest for fraud. A photocopy of the voter’s ID would have to accompany the absentee ballot. That ID information would be crosschecked upon receipt for legitimacy, including death records. Should the ID raise any red flags, the bipartisan team would contact the voter to ensure legitimacy. A protocol for disputes would be put in place for deciding any questionable ballots.

8) Provisional Ballots: All standard ID requirements would apply. No affidavits would be accepted for sole proof of eligibility.

9) The dead vote: Any person on the voter rolls over 80 years of age would be verified for legitimacy by the “ID Watchers”, by home visit if necessary. Absentee ballots would be matched to live individuals and cross-referenced to death records. All suspect registrations and/or ballots would be investigated by the nonpartisan committee.

10) Military vote: All ballots would be sent out to military personal far in advance of elections, within one week of the official ballot being established. Any state that does not monitor their own counties for this standard would be denied representation in DC for a one year.

11) The mentally challenged or criminally insane vote: Any setting where votes are cast without consent from the family or legal guardian from institutional settings housing the mentally challenged would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Convicted criminals (where the law applies) would have their vote tossed out, cross-checking all relevant criminal records to ballots. All participating staff would be charged criminally if found to be helping those individuals to the polls or requesting absentee ballots on their behalf.

12) Technology vs. Paper Ballots: Technology and software have the ability to be manipulated by programmers without the ability to verify results or fraud. If states choose to use electronic voting machines, those votes must accompany paper ballots for verification. Similar to random drug tests, precincts and counties with known past issues, recent concerns raised by reports from individuals, and random sampling of others would be used to monitor the integrity of the system. Any state opting out of this system would be ineligible for representation in the federal government. Those states not in compliance may continue to have local elections in their desired manner.

13) All software programs utilized to tabulate votes at the state and county levels are to be checked by the bi-artisan team. This will take place before elections, spot-checked during and after elections. If any program is found to be intentionally written to change outcomes, those involved will be prosecuted; and that company and all individuals involved would be barred from any further software production or participating in any election process. All bids for voting machine upkeep and programming would be put out for bids. No contracts would be awarded at any gov’t level without a fair bidding process to be overseen by the bipartisan teams.

Only U.S. companies would be allowed to participate in voting tabulation or software used in any of the operations in this system. This is to ensure all standards are met and to ensure U.S. laws prevail and will be enforced if any irregularities occur.

14) Lastly, any state, county, or precinct that does not allow certified poll watchers to actively observe the voting process and ballot counting would be denied the ability to submit their results to be counted.

The 2012 election debacle should be the last time we as citizens of the USA see this type of alleged fraud perpetrated on our great country. There should never be a question in any U.S. citizen’s mind that an election was fair or legitimate. Even the perception of fraud is unacceptable. While there is no claim that the 2012 election would have turned out differently, it is imperative that the U.S. maintains the utmost concern for voter integrity from here forward. There is no justifiable excuse for any concerns over the legitimacy of the elections in the U.S.A.

The goal is to ensure that all citizens feel their vote counts; this will also drive greater participation in the voting process.

If you want to see this plan set in motion, forward this information to all your representatives and governors. Email it to all your friends and family. And don’t forget to post it on social media sites or blogs. Please help to get the word out. We demand our votes be counted!

http://pleasecountmyvote.com

(Edited by Jim Griffin.)

Filed Under: Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , ,

Black Judge Commutes Four Killers’ Sentences Based On Race

December 28, 2012 by 20 Comments

Flickr Creative Commons Scott Justice is Blind statue Black judge commutes four killers’ sentences based on race

An activist judge in North Carolina said prosecutorial racism was the reason he commuted the sentences of four convicted killers.

Described as three of the state’s most notorious death row killers, among the group’s victims are three law enforcement officers, two women and a teenager. The judge was able to overrule the first sentence under the state’s controversial Racial Justice Act.

Commuting a black man’s death sentence to life in prison, the judge cited “the persistent, distorting role of race in jury selection in North Carolina.”

He never argued the man – found guilty of kidnapping and robbing a teenager before shooting him in the face – might be innocent. Since the Racial Justice Act gave him the discretion, he simply declared prosecutors were racist and gave a murderer a get-out-of-death-row-free card.

Republicans subsequently gained control of the state’s legislature and enacted a new, pared down, version of the act. Apparently, that didn’t present an obstacle for the black judge who commuted the sentences of three more murderers – including two cop killers – later the same year.

Concluding race was a factor in jury selection, he presented some handwritten notes supposedly proving prosecutors tried to eliminate blacks from jury pools to back up his claim.

One killer is a Lumbee Indian convicted of murdering two women and shooting another in a gang initiation; the other two are black men who killed a total of three law enforcement officers in separate incidents.

“This conclusion is based primarily on the words and deeds of the prosecutors involved in these cases,” the judge ruled. To the casual observer, though, it seems his conclusion might have roots in his own idea of racial justice.

Some in the courtroom expressed vocal disagreement to the ruling, including the brother of one murdered state trooper who shouted an expletive as the judge spoke. As about sixty uniformed police officers left the courtroom, a woman in attendance yelled at them, urging them to shed their badges because the legal system could not protect them from criminals.

Activist judges from the Supreme Court down can cause significant damage to our system of law. Although prosecutors plan to appeal the judge’s ruling, this case proves America’s justice system is not immune to moral relativism and race baiting tactics.

B. Christopher Agee founded The Informed Conservative in 2011. Like his Facebook page for engaging, relevant conservative content daily.

Photo credit: Doug (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: ,

2012: An Irrational Devotion To Secularism

November 15, 2012 by 6 Comments

Obama Big Government SC 2012: An Irrational Devotion to Secularism

Pundits say that Hispanics, single women, young people, and blacks delivered a victory for President Obama’s re-election. However, these are only external differences that do little to explain the internal unity that each group shares in their irrational devotion to secularism. The devotion is irrational because the reduced economic fruits (and social decay) it brings cannot be sustained, thereby threatening its ultimate survival.

Secularism is the worldview that elevates the state as a source of redemption. Secularists strongly adhere to a moral construct based upon moral relativism. Secularists favor government intervention in markets. They also believe in legal positivism (the Constitution is a living document that evolves based upon the interpretation of activist judges.) They also believe in social justice, a state intervention that exchanges freedom for outcome equality. This exchange has never ended well throughout history. It invites a form of utopianism. Students of history understand that utopianism always leads to tyranny.

The irrational devotion to secularism in the 2012 Presidential election can be seen from the following facts:

1) When President Obama took office, the unemployment rate was 7.9 percent and stayed there for his term.

2) Real median household income has decreased over $4,000 during Obama’s term.

3) When Barack Obama took office, the average price of a gallon of gasoline was $1.85. Today, the average price of a gallon of gasoline is over $3.71.

4) Since becoming president, the number of long-term unemployed Americans has risen by 2.5 million.

5) For the first time in the post-World War II era, the employment-population ratio has not recovered after a recession. The percentage of working-age Americans with a job has been below 59 percent for three years in a row. The labor participation rate plummeted to almost 50-year lows.

6) The number of Americans on food stamps has grown from 31.9 million to approximately 47 million.

7) The U.S. government has run a budget deficit of well over a trillion dollars every year under Obama.

8) The U.S. credit rating was downgraded from AAA status for the first time ever.

9) Since Obama took office, the U.S. national debt has increased by almost 60%.

10) The combination of high unemployment, increased debt, division based upon identity politics, establishment of an unprecedented number of czars that circumvent congressional review, the appointment of two progressive Supreme Court justices, the inability to submit a budget, the reverence for redistribution, the bowing before other heads of state, the denial of America being a Christian nation, the radical associations before taking office, the radical appointments after taking office, etc. all clearly suggest that President Obama is a secularist who believes that man was born good and simply requires the state to perfect his existence. He has even stated that he believes his salvation is tied to “collective salvation” based upon a utopian secular ideal. Despite stating that he is a Christian (with the doctrinal requirement that salvation is through Christ alone), President Obama has stated he believes his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham (an avowed atheist), is in heaven and that Christ may not be the only way to heaven. Obama’s theological confusion arises from the fact that he is a secularist. He believes in the state.

Given the foregoing record of failures, it is difficult to make a case that this president has a better plan for the next four years than he did for the last four. Certainly, his re-election does not solve the problems in the economy. Why would people rationally vote for more of the same? The reason that he won the election is that a majority of Americans have now embraced the philosophical construct of secularism with its component attributes of government intervention and entitlements, as well as moral relativism. Some say it is a devotion to the man. Facts indicate it is a devotion to his worldview. This is why the Democratic leadership wrestled with the inclusion of God in its platform, elevated abortion to a state-funded right, and attacked the capitalism of the Republican nominee. This is why a secularist-controlled state of California just raised their state income tax rate to 13.3%, a decision likely to stimulate emigration, slow growth, and serve as a catalyst for economic despair. The Obama strategy is not about addressing the economic challenges overwhelming the country. It is not about targeting different demographics. It is about the promises of the secularist worldview, which is the unifying principle of these different groups. This strategy always leads to economic and social decline.

Unfortunately, this strategy was pursued by Europe over the past few decades with disastrous results. Secularism destroyed economies (and people) throughout the 20th century. America, for its part, had a brief affair with secularism after the Revolutionary War when the church-going population dropped substantially, prompting Thomas Jefferson to state that the evangelical religion would be replaced by Unitarianism. Within a short time of Jefferson’s flawed prophecy, America entered the Second Great Awakening. Jefferson was largely secular in his worldview and was clearly no prophet.

Recent Barna Group research indicates that approximately 19% of Christians have a biblical worldview, and Pew says that 73% of Americans are Christian. If 19% of 73% have a Biblical worldview, this equates to approximately 14% of Americans with a Biblical worldview. Recent Pew survey data indicates that approximately 20% of Americans are “secular.” Consequently, it is clear that secularists (20%) exceed the number of Christians with a “Biblical worldview” at 14%. This explains why secularists are driving national elections and why Obama won re-election. It is also supported by the fact that secularism is pervasive in the Northeast and West Coast. Coincidentally, it is those two regions that substantially delivered a second Obama presidency. Furthermore, an increasingly secular education establishment, supported by media and judiciary institutions hostile to the Judeo-Christian worldview, explains why a troubled America has an irrational devotion to secularism. Secularism promises what it can’t deliver, and the historical record confirms that freedom always declines in the face of secular advance.

Future success for conservatives does not depend upon targeting the “externals”, i.e. the demography of different groups and making promises that can’t be kept. It is about focusing on the “internals”, i.e. worldview-graphics that reflect the common worldview of the many groups. The problem arises in that if Americans are truly secular in their worldview, it will be difficult for conservatives to win national elections from a population that is in the process of abandoning the Judeo-Christian worldview (which has dominated America for more than the past two centuries.) There may be local and state elections where conservatives can still enjoy electability, but they are unlikely to dominate the national election unless either concessions to secular interests are offered or the electorate returns to a biblical worldview.

There are many similarities between the formation of Israel and the formation of the United States. Both countries were established under the guiding principles of a transcendent and sovereign God. The Old Testament of the Bible is clear in its teaching regarding the relationship between God and Israel. The pattern goes something like this. Israel rebels. God intervenes with retributive justice. Israel repents. God rewards their repentance with restoration. Rebellion brings judgment, which yields repentance followed by restoration. If you believe that model is true and that America has become increasingly secular, it should be no surprise that God’s judgment may be the next step in America’s journey. Questions about what form would such a judgment take and when will it happen cannot be answered here and are for the reader to ponder.

The secularism that enabled President Obama to win re-election from so many groups interested in their own secular agenda (immigration amnesty, abortion rights, social justice, utopianism, etc.) may actually be his own undoing. He will not be able to satisfy their expectations. In fact, economic conditions are likely to deteriorate in a way that resembles other European countries such as Greece, Spain, etc. Economics has a way of sustaining or destroying a nation. The study of civilizations shows a relationship between economics and morality. Even the founding fathers knew that freedom required virtue, and virtue required morality. Secularism rejects absolute morality in favor of moral relativism.

Conservatives would be prudent to consider worldview analysis in their political strategy if they seek to return to national prominence. All Americans would be prudent to examine their own moral condition and ask if the Bible is correct in Proverbs 14:34: “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin condemns any people.” It is unlikely that secularists (who survey the national landscape) would state that our nation is a healthy and righteous one. Secularists live off the social and economic capital that those with a Judeo-Christian worldview have built. Some argue that secularists are better stewards of the environment given to them rather than the social and economic capital they inherit. The latter clearly take precedence when examining the success and viability of civilizations.

Faith in secularism has reached a tipping point in America. Yet, it is a blind faith that secularists expressed in their re-election of President Obama. A successful faith depends upon the object in which the faith is placed. Placing that faith in a second Obama term, for economic and social advance, represents long odds that even gambling addicts would be hard-pressed to justify.

Photo credit: Dan Jacobs (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , , , ,

The Charge Of The Grey-Haired Conservatives

August 18, 2012 by 10 Comments

Bible and Flag The Charge of the Grey Haired Conservatives

Remember us? The “baby boomers,” “Senior Citizens,” “Dinosaurs,” “Old Geezers,” and “Over the Hill gang.” Guess what? We’re baaaaack. Remember 2010? We delivered the House and almost the Senate. Well, we intend to finish in 2012 what we started in 2010. Democrats make the mistake of believing all we care about is our Social Security checks, so we know what to expect. Guess what, liberals? Our real concern is for the future of our children and grandchildren. We intend to see that they have the same freedoms and opportunities our God, our founders, and our parents gave us.

We are still the ones who won World War II and fought in Korea and Vietnam. We can still quote the Pledge of Allegiance by heart and, unlike the “amateur” in the White House, know where to place our hand while doing so. We wore the uniform of our country with pride and lost many friends on the battlefield. We know the words to the Star Spangled Banner, “America”, and “America the Beautiful”. Don’t be surprised if you see some tears run down our cheeks as we sing. We have lived what many have only read in history books, and we feel no obligation to apologize to anyone for America.

Yes, we are old and slow, but rest assured, we still have fight left in us. We have loved this country, fought for it, and bled for it; and nobody is going to take it away from us. We took oaths to defend America against all enemies “foreign and domestic”, and that’s an oath we plan to keep. There are those who want to destroy this land we love, and, like our founders, there is no way we are going to remain silent. You think the lines at Chick-fil-A were long? Just wait until you see the lines at the polling places in November. In 1776, when our forefathers were fighting against the forces of King George III to establish these “shores of freedom”, he referred to them as an insignificant rabble. The colonist had a different name for them – Patriots. King Obama has labeled those of us fighting to preserve this “Shinning City” as “domestic terrorists”. That’s a name we wear with pride.

When we think about Obama, one word comes to mind – tyrant. When we speak of the Obama Administration, we are referring to an out of control Executive branch, a complicit Congress, and the many activist judges sitting on the courts of our land. The term would also have to include the mainstream media that supports them. Our forefathers were a rag-tag army of untrained volunteers up against the best-trained military of their day. No one thought they could win, no one but the men doing the fighting. The British Forces were paid to maintain the King’s power. The Colonial Patriots were fighting for their land and the families they loved. Today, Obama is fighting to maintain his power over “We the People”. We are fighting to preserve this “Land of Freedom” for our children and grandchildren. What the Congress, Supreme Court, and Joint Chiefs have refused to do, we will.

Our founders had three boxes: the soap box, the jury box, and the cartridge box. They tried the first, were rejected by the second, and were forced to use the third. They left us a fourth – the ballot box. The time is now that we “domestic terrorists” must either stand and fight or condemn our children and grandchildren to a lifetime of slavery under a New World Order. It’s a battle we cannot, we must not, and with God’s help, we will not lose. It’s about an idea called “America”; it’s about this “God blessed, windswept, island of freedom.” It’s about America’s story, our story; and we will never surrender to tyrants. It is the lives of our children and grandchildren that are at the heart of this battle. They deserve our all, no less, and that is exactly what we intend to give – God bless America.

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: ,

Is This The Best We Can Do?

June 25, 2012 by 4 Comments

US Flag 3 SC 300x262 Is This the Best We Can Do?

Is the state of our nation right now the best that we can achieve? Are we so lazy and complacent as a people that we will accept being lied to blatantly? Are we so expectant of being taken care of in this country that we have surrendered our will and sense of self determination to an “elitist few”, who care nothing about us as human beings, but only for the power we can give them? Are we willing to follow blindly anyone who promises us what they really can’t deliver, like the rats after the Pied Piper? Have we really forgotten how to take responsibility for ourselves and demand the same from others?

Is it true that we will accept corruption and immorality just because “that’s the way it is?” Is it true that we no longer dream or aspire to reach the highest pinnacle of our talents and our knowledge? Do we no longer tell our children, and believe it ourselves, that we can be anything that we want to be if we just work hard and persevere? Do we tear down those of all colors that have gained wealth through their labors, their ideas, and their dreams? Do we indeed demand something for nothing as a “right” and not a privilege, for living in this great land? Do we help others to gain a reward, or just because that’s what Americans do?

Has our sense of right and wrong become so callous that we will accept the corruption that comes out of our nations capital and flows to every sewer pit in this country that sees it as doing” business as usual?” Are we willing to allow our public school system to teach our children about sex, Wicca (witchcraft,) and Islam, and yet fight everything Judeo-Christian about American life? Are we willing to allow our military people to die in places they really don’t need to be, just to prove a point? No end game, no assistance, no trust in the people we are fighting for, and a no win situation (kind of like Afghanistan and our soldiers being killed by those we are supposedly fighting to protect)?

Do we really believe that we are promoting “women’s health” by allowing them to kill their unborn babies? We allow political parties to worry more about their accumulated power than about whether of not what they are doing is good for the country as a whole. We allow some activist judges to sit on their thrones and throw out the laws that we have to satisfy their socially active desire to play god! Why? Through our Republican representative form of government we have the power and the right through our representatives to remove ANYONE from office who oversteps their authority! That also DOES NOT mean that every MINORITY group in this country, or even militant individuals have the right to start a flurry of frivolous lawsuits to change the world into their image. Why don’t we all pressure our representatives into passing a law that if you bring a frivolous lawsuit and LOSE you have to pay ALL court costs on both sides?

Why do we allow the American Civil Liberties Union to get reinbursed by the government for every lawsuit they file, whether reasonable or not? Let them get paid out of the pockets of their plaintiffs…..if they win! Why do we respond to negative advertising without probing into what the truth really is behind the ad? There is an old saying that if you want to avoid conflict then never talk politics or religion. You know that’s funny because one can keep you out of hell while the other can make your life here on earth a living hell? Avoidance at all costs? Only at you own peril!

We need to change America and keep her strong so that our kids can enjoy baseball games, sports, music, and a bright future. We adults need to know that our borders are safe, our food and water are safe, and there are people out there who guard and protect us under God’s watch to keep us safe from our enemies and secure in our nation. We need to get back to the fundamentals of our founding fathers and make this country the economic envy of the world once again. We have more brain power, knowledge, and are more technologically advanced human beings in this country than anywhere else on the planet! Why?, because we offer the world’s freedom loving people something they can only find in it’s purest form here, in America…..LIBERTY!

Is this present circumstance really the best we are capable of? Only if we choose to accept it. Our college graduates and our people need good paying jobs! Our country needs energy independence and the jobs that quest would generate. America needs to recapture our manufacturing past because we did and will again make the best products on the planet. We need to reform our immigration system so that NO ONE waits more than five years to become an American citizen.

Mostly, we need people who want to become Americans, not some pampered minority group. Americans who are proud of their country and willing to contribute to her greatness. We need people who want to become leaders to UNITE our melting pot country, not divide us with fear and hatred. My thoughts to those who may think this all “patriotic propaganda,” let me just say that there are flights leaving on the hour to places all over the world more suited to your anti-American attitude. This 4th of July remember our warriors, both living and dead, men and women, who gave the ultimate sacrifice of their time and their lives so that you and I could maintain this wonderful country for future generations. God bless you all….Happy 4th.

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: ,

Unintended Consequences Of Removing God

June 25, 2012 by 7 Comments
Lords Prayer SC 300x225 Unintended Consequences of Removing God

Before 1963, our founding fathers had intended that our schools would be the bastions of teaching our children moral and ethical conduct. Why, heaven knows that prayers were allowed, even encouraged, in school, the Ten Commandments were even taught. If you want to proof that statement, then go back and check out the UNREVISED history of the United States. I am a firm believer that our Creator gave us free will and the rewards or consequences of our decisions right or wrong. I said that so that you would know where I’m coming from in this following article.

A 68 year grandmother named Karen Klein of Greece, New York, is a bus monitor on the local school systems buses, and it seems that four 13 year old boys took it upon themselves to verbally assault this poor woman mercilessly. The woman was driven to tears, and the four bullies involved have not publically apologized to her. Out of sympathy of America’s great heart, Karen received more than $500,000. This country is still the greatest country in the world bar none. These boys deserved a serious whuppin’. Not a”time out”, not a slap on the wrist, but a serious, old-fashioned whuppin’.

Here’s my take on why I think we have gotten to this point with our children. In 1963, an Atheist named Madeline Murray O’Hare set out to get prayer banished from her son’s school. Eventually, with the help of activist judges on the Supreme Court of 1963, she succeeded in getting prayer banned from ALL public schools. Strike one! In the late 70′s, the government decided that parents really didn’t know how to discipline their children, so they wrote new laws that said basically if you spanked your child you were committing ASSAULT. Your children could now call the law on you and not only have you incarcerated, but Child Protective Services could come to your home and manage your family for you. Strike two. The third action that the government took was to allow children to “divorce” their parents if the children didn’t like being told NO! Child “emancipation” enacted by the courts. Strike three!

Children were given “rights” by the courts and SOCIALIST PROGRESSIVE lawyers and “social workers’ with too much time on their hands and an OBSESSION to control your life. God says in His word ( for you unbelievers, don’t worry about it) “he who spares the rod HATES his son (or daughter).” Children are to be disciplined because unless they are taught control they will succumb to rebellion very time. It’s human nature! Dr. Spock, the famous baby doctor, once wrote a book that discouraged disciplining children. Did you know that his son committed suicide? Some think that even children know that discipline is shown because you love them.

Atheists and “shady” religious freedom organizations have steadily worked to erase God and HIS presence from American culture. So what has been the result? How about Columbine, and a sudden rash of school shootings across the United States? How about the explosion of American kids getting into killer gangs? How “flash mobs” of mostly young people robbing from merchants across our country? Why do some of our youth think nothing of taking a life without a thought?

Why is there so much teenage pregnancy and an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases affecting younger and younger children? Why do we allow pornagraphy in all its forms in our school and society? To Larry Flint, your pornography says nothing but perversion sir! Nothing more, nothing less! Why don’t our children have any respect for their own parents, let alone their elders? Refer back to strikes 1, 2 & 3! Why do our children committ suicide as frequently as they do? Why are there so many different and deadly drugs avaiable to our kids at younger and younger ages?

I heard a lady on television being interviewed outside a high school somewhere right after one of these shootings. The woman looked at the camera and said “where was God in all this”? I yelled at the TV, “You kicked him out of schools, remember?!” Karen Klein is only the latest example of what has happened to America because we have let a bunch of immoral bureaucrats tell us how we are going to run our families and our schools. You know why this generation of children is called the “lost generation”? It’s because we, adults, have allowed them to lose their moral compass. If I had been one of those boys back in my youth, my mother would have beat my behind until I couldn’t walk, and I would have still been grounded 46 years later. My mom and dad were NOT going to stand for their children being disrespectful to anybody. My wife’s parents were the same way. God didn’t walk away from us….we walked away from Him as a nation. We are now paying the price for that decision. Militant gays shoving their intolerance in everyone’s face. Atheists’ challenge anything and everything that our country was founded on, and winning by soliciting SOCIALIST PROGRESSIVE activist judges. Our Constitution has been ignored and stomped on by these same people.

I find it heartwarming that Karen Klein has been taken care of, but unless we do something as Americans to return to our cultural roots and our faith this country is going to continue to suffer the consequence of bad decisions. Remember our Constitution on July 4th and all it has given you. Oh, by the way, children have only the “privileges” given to them by their parents, their “rights” don’t start until they can pay their own way upon turning 18. Happy Independence Day!

Photo credit: Lori SR (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: ,

Was The Georgia Secretary Of State’s Decision “Greased”?

February 21, 2012 by 52 Comments

Eligibility Was The Georgia Secretary Of States Decision Greased?

”That thing was greased,” as they say in Chicago, referring to a political phenomenon known as “being handled before table.”  Well, bloggers are asking, was it?  Word now coming out reveals just two days after Secretary of State Brian Kemp gave Barack Obama the green light to appear on Georgia election ballots,, the Department of Energy awarded Kemp’s state an eye popping $8.3 billion loan guarantee  to begin construction on two nuclear plants.  In the face of “a shocking dissent by Nuclear Regulatory Commission CHAIRMAN Director Gregory B. Jazcko,”  four other commissioners approved awarding Southern Energy the first nuclear construction licenses since 1978, just one year before the tragedy of the Three Mile Island nuclear disaster put a hold on new U.S. nuclear plant construction.  No new licenses have been approved until this huge Vogtle project got its go ahead to build two new reactors near Augusta.

“Jazcko said that the approved designs did not take the lessons of Fukushima into account. I cannot support issuing this license as if Fukushima never happened,” he told other NRC members before their shocking vote to approve this estimated $14 billion project.  Friends of the Earth’s climate and energy project Director Damon Moglen is vowing to challenge the validity of the newly approved license in court.  “The license may be granted, but these reactors are far from a done deal,” he said.  Applications for 16 other plants looking to build 25 more reactors are on file with the NRC according to CNN Money reporter Steve Hargreaves , who added, “there are two applications submitted for brand new nuclear plants-one in Levy County, FL, and another outside Gaffney, S.C.”

While other viable nuclear construction projects await approval, the Georgia project got the green light in spite of the NRC director’s vehement objection as well as “12 sizeable construction change order requests (and) long-running site-specific design and fabrication problems (which) have confounded Westinghouse and its lead contractor for more than two years.”

So on February 7, 2012, Georgia Secretary of State Kemp stated “after careful consideration of Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi’s initial decision and all record evidence based on the criteria set forth in this process, I find that the Respondent, President Barack Obama, meets the State of Georgia’s eligibility requirements.”   And a scant two days later, Obama’s DOE finds the money to award Kemp’s state a whopping $8.3 billion loan guarantee for a $14 billion nuclear project and license approvals not done in the industry in over 30 years!

One blogger said after the Malihi story, “This crap needs to end–NOW!!!”  Another blogger who tipped me off about the Malihi-Nuclear decision connection mused, “The fix was in long before this challenge was ever submitted.”

Note: The Vogtle nuclear site is located near Waynesboro, GA, according to Wikipedia.

Filed Under: Coachisright, Commentary, Featured Stories Tagged With: , , ,

Moral And Logical Deficits In California’s Ninth Circuit

February 20, 2012 by 6 Comments

Gay Marriage Moral and Logical Deficits in California’s Ninth Circuit
If you are have forgotten or are unaware of what all the talk of Proposition 8 is about, be reminded that this California law was passed in 2008 to satisfy the will of the majority who wanted to define  marriage as a covenant relationship between one man and one woman.  On February 7th of 2012, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decided to strike down Proposition 8 by declaring it unconstitutional.

The rulings against Proposition 8 are characterized by the biased presuppositions of activist judges.  The function of these judges should be to simply interpret existing law and determine if concurs with the constitution.  Unfortunately, most judges, even and perhaps especially Supreme Court Justices, are willing to prostitute their positions to advance their own personal political and social agendas.  Was this not blatantly obvious when Judge Vaughn Walker, who is openly homosexual and sports a homosexual partner, ruled against Proposition 8 in his “love letter to homosexuals” where he declared that the proposition “unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation” in a lower district court in 2010?

The Judges of the 9th District Court had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to come up with any justification to oppose Proposition 8.  The best they could do was voiced by Judge Stephen Reinhart, “Absent any legitimate purpose for Proposition 8, we are left with ‘the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward,’ or as is more likely with respect to Californians who voted for the proposition, mere disapproval of, ‘the class of persons affected.’”  This judge effectively spit in the face of California voters who voted Proposition 8 into existence by declaring that their desire to sustain the definition of marriage that has worked so well for millenniums previous and their desire to preserve an institution that preserves opportunities for procreation are illegitimate desires concocted to cover up a bigoted hatred for homosexuals.

Bobble heads have emerged to offer their two cents and shamelessly promote themselves and their irreverent agenda.  Ted Olson, the U.S. solicitor general under President George W. Bush, represents the plaintiffs in Proposition 8.  He declared the recent decision to be a first step in ending discrimination. “Today we are more American because of this decision”.  May we request a definition for ‘American’?

Mitt Romney, the Republican Presidential candidate spoke for conservatives when he promised to appoint judges who would oppose same-sex marriages, “Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage.”  Please notice he also put a negative slant on the fact that these judges were not elected, but appointed, and then promised to do more of the same.

President Obama played his typical part as a non-player too weak and timid to choose sides.  He declared that his opinion on the issue is still “evolving”.

The rationale of the court is that the state of California is violating the constitution by denying a right afforded to one group (heterosexuals) from another. (homosexuals)  It seems the real question here is what is the difference between a right and a privilege?  The constitution was written to protect our rights, not privileges.  In order for a certain thing to have a right that certain thing must be defined.  Opponents of marriage for homosexuals have defined marriage as a covenant between one man and one woman.  You cannot grant this same right to any couple other than one that meets the definition.  If the definition is corrupted there is no obligation to grant the right.  The claim from proponents of gay marriage that they are not trying to redefine marriage is absurd.  They must redefine it in order to qualify for the rights they demand.  There has been no definition of marriage forthcoming from that side of the aisle.

The fact is, they are not redefining marriage.  They are undefining it.  (See How to Win the Marriage Debate, Selwyn Duke) The practice of declaring undeserved rights has become all too common in our modern society.  Homosexuals in undefined relationships clamor for rights that are preserved for traditional married couples. Likewise, illegal immigrants expect to be treated as if they were legal, legitimate citizens of the U.S.  Our youthful, dead-beat dropouts expect to be treated in the same way as the hard working, non-partying college grad that chose a different and more difficult path.   There is a prevailing belief system that attempts to eliminate consequences for poor decisions and bad behavior.  The majority of pre-birth murders are committed in an attempt to escape consequences for a decision regretted.

If the left wing of this issue (gay marriage) cannot specifically define marriage, how can they specify what marriage “is not”?  If marriage IS between two people of the same gender, could marriage also not be between three people of the same gender?  Is marriage deemed legitimate if it is between a single person of one gender and multiple persons of another gender?  Is it necessary for marriage to include only human beings?  Do we really want to open that can of worms?  The 9th Circuit ruled on the ‘rights’ to marriage but did they even bother to define what it was they were supposedly protecting?  How can you grant rights to something undefined?

It is for this reason most reasonable citizens believe the movement to legalized gay marriage is actually an attempt to destroy the traditional, time-honored institution that was clearly sanctioned by God.  When men begin to devise their own plans as substitutes to God’s plan it doesn’t go well for man.  God’s plan was to “multiply and replenish” the earth.  His plan makes wonderful provision for the care of the elderly who are loved and cherished by their many offspring.  When we oppose this plan by reducing our number of offspring through abortion and homosexual unions we bring confusion, poverty and destruction upon society.

God never sanctioned marriage between same gendered individuals.  In fact, he clearly condemned such a thing.  (See 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:26-27)  The absurdity of it all is that the 9th Circuit Court is trying to protect and preserve a ‘right’ to something that has not been defined and does not actually exist.

Filed Under: Commentary Tagged With: , , , , ,

Did Judge Malihi Base Eligibility Decision On Sharia Law?

February 13, 2012 by 44 Comments

“This is an outrage, an absolute outrage,” Attorney Orly Taitz told a radio audience in Western New  York.  She believes Judge Michael Malihi, a Clinton era appointee, is from Iran which could have a bearing if he is steeped in Sharia Law.  When he brought down a favorable decision for Obama’s appearing on state ballots, Taitz sent by overnight courier a 23 page appeal  to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp pleading with him to ignore the judge’s advisory decision –  to no avail.

judgemalihi Did Judge Malihi Base Eligibility Decision On Sharia Law?

Kemp rubber stamped the Malihi decision, and now the appeal process begins in earnest.  Plaintiff attorney J. Mark Hatfield will escalate this case to the appellate level immediately.  With emergency appeals well in place before Georgia’s March 6 Super Tuesday, Hatfield told World Net Daily:  ”I will be filing that on behalf of Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell just as soon as I can get it drafted!”

Taitz told her listeners: “It was abundantly clear…that Judge Malihi was under an outside pressure to rush the case.”  Her appeal contains three key procedural points. First, Malihi refused to allow her to properly present her opening statement. Secondy, he rushed plaintiff witnesses. Finally,  throughout the case he would allow only the Natural Born Citizen argument.    But what Malihi did was unprecedented because he based his decision on the Arkeny [sic] v. Daniels case out of Indiana which was never cited by the defense! “A presiding judge cannot suddenly pull out of a hat some case,” Taitz fumed.

Trying to follow up on the Malihi Iranian angle proved very frustrating.  Another blogger trying to trace Judge Michael Malihi’s background found virtually NO information on him, although other judicial search subjects presented much biographical data.  She was able to find names of Malihi’s relatives, namely Mehdi Malihi, Masoud M. Malihi, Malie S. Malihi, Mahzad Malihi, and Lia E. Malihi.     The street address given for his Westport, CT estate appears to list a house number higher than official records enumerate, so this is just another facet of the Georgia mystery judge.

The Taitz presentation revealed that our current president’s name on his mother’s passport was SOEBARKAH, yet in his Indonesian school records his last name is Soetoro!  She said on appeal: “Obama never presented admissible competent evidence showing Obama to be born in this country, yet the judge considered Obama to be born here.”

She also appealed for consideration the fact that there is “no valid Social Security number, and that the E verify test failed” for the number commonly given.  But in spite of his verdict, the judge for the first time allowed evidence pertaining to the challenge of Barack Obama’s eligibility to run for U.S. President to be admitted into open court, thus paving the way for the appeals process.  Obama’s Malihi victory may be a Pyrrhic one indeed!

Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio is announcing the findings of his cold case posse research on March 1; he told reporter Jerome Corsi in an exclusive story that some will find the results “Shocking!”

To contact your Congressional Representative use this link: http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

To read more use these links:

http://str8talk,wordpress.com/

www.orlytaitzesq.com/

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/georgia-eligibility-challenge-returns

http://www.intangiblesoul.com/2012/02/04/who-is-judge-michael-malihi

Filed Under: Blogs, Coachisright, Commentary, Featured Stories Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Georgia Eligibility Decision Based On Legal Blunders

February 10, 2012 by 33 Comments

barack obama9483 Georgia Eligibility Decision Based On Legal Blunders

Though Georgia Administrative Judge Michael Malihi claimed to have issued a decision based upon “the law as well as the evidence,” we now know he made proper use of neither. For the Judge had no evidence in the Court record upon which to base his assertion of “fact” that Obama “was born in the United States.” And the Indiana Appeals Court decision to which Judge Malihi looked for his ONLY guidance made a thoroughly incorrect interpretation of existing case law.

In short, Judge Malihi’s decision wouldn’t pass muster in a first year law school classroom.

“The court can only rest its finding of fact on evidence that is part of the court record.” This is a rule of evidence of the superior court as stated by Attorney Mario Apuzzo.  Yet only plaintiff’s evidence was contained in Malihi’s Court record and the Judge concluded that their claims were “not persuasive.”  As Apuzzo puts it, “surely the court did not use those “insufficient” documents as evidence of Obama’s place of birth.”

So how exactly was Judge Malihi permitted, in a proper legal manner, to state in his decision “the following facts are considered: 1) Mr. Obama was born in the United States…”?

But just as disturbing as basing “fact” on evidence he didn’t have is the Judge’s choice of an incorrectly reasoned and decided Indiana case as the basis of his decision.

As in the case before Malihi, the 2009 Indiana case “Ankeny v Governor” involved a suit by plaintiffs who claimed Obama did not meet the Article ll, “natural born citizen” requirement of the United States Constitution.

Although there is no definition of “natural born citizen” in the Constitution, there is a  Supreme Court case in which the term “natural born citizen” is clearly defined.

Writing for the unanimous majority in the 1875 SC case Minor v Happersett, Chief Justice Waite stated:

At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Minor goes on to state:

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

So Minor made it clear that “natural born citizens” are born in the United States to parents who are US citizens. And those born in the US to parents who may not be citizens, may or may not be citizens themselves. Note there is NO question of “natural born” status in this second example, but merely citizenship.

However, the Ankeny Court decided that Minor did not really define “whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen,” claiming that the SC “left the issue open.”

The Indiana Court then went on to conflate Article ll of the Constitution with the 14th Amendment which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…”

“The United States Supreme Court has read these two provisions in tandem…” states the Ankeny Court with a total lack of evidence for its claim.  It then makes the INCREDIBLE leap that although the language contained in Article ll and the 14th Amendment is completely different and although the 14th Amendment doesn’t speak of “natural born” citizens at all,  the Supreme Court has somehow decided that anyone born in the United States is a “natural born citizen.”

It is this nonsensical bit of legal legerdemain upon which Judge Malihi relies in deciding Barack Obama is qualified to be on the Georgia ballot, writing “as discussed in Arkeny, [sic] he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.”

But these represent only a couple of the remarkable errors made by Judge Malihi in his Obama Decision. Coach is Right will present others over the next few days, along with the progress of appeals this decision is guaranteed to evoke.

Filed Under: Coachisright, Commentary, Featured Stories Tagged With: , , , ,