Obama’s In Texas To Talk Jobs? He Should Try Listening

Steve Stockman official portrait Obama’s in Texas to talk jobs? He should try listening

 

In February, I invited Barack Obama to come to Texas to learn to create jobs.

Four months later, and under intense pressure to make it look like he cares about the unemployed, he’s coming to Austin for “an event on the economy.”

Instead of talking, he should come and listen.

He inherited an unemployment rate of 7.3 percent.  After four years and a Congress that gave him everything he demanded in a $1.2 trillion “stimulus” bill, the only thing that grew was human suffering.

Under Obama, the percentage of the adult population with a job or looking for one has dropped to record levels.  The “civilian labor force participation rate” is at an abysmally low 63.3 percent, the lowest since 1979 and Jimmy Carter.

Additionally, 9.5 million working-age Americans have given up on finding a job under Obama. Combined, they would make the nation’s 11th largest state.

Job creation is nearly dead under Obama and nowhere near what we need to recover.  Americans are giving up looking for work under Obama in numbers unseen since Carter.  Black and Hispanic unemployment have grown to epidemic levels under this president.

The widespread suffering makes Obama’s decision to disband his Jobs Council earlier this year even more insulting.  Obama wants us to accept unemployment and poverty as the new normal.  Under Obama, our only reliable export is failure.

People are suffering because of Obama sinking deeper into his personal agenda of high taxes and attacks on job creators rather than creating a rising tide of prosperity.

Obama’s stubborn policy of raising taxes on job creators and issuing wasteful regulations means the private sector isn’t growing fast enough to restore our economy.  We can’t afford four more years of Obama’s failed liberalism.  He needs to turn off his teleprompter that’s already pre-programmed with the same old failed agenda of tax hikes and more giveaways to his political donors.

If Obama wants to learn how to create jobs, he should stop talking and instead listen to Texans.

Texas also inherited an economy from George W. Bush. Unlike Obama’s economy, ours is booming.  Spending cuts, small government, and light regulations are the fuel that has the Texas economy roaring.

Texas did it by cutting taxes, while Obama grounded America’s economy to a halt by raising taxes.

Texas fueled jobs by expanding our oil and gas industry, while Obama has siphoned off jobs by slashing oil and gas production on federal lands and aggressively attacking private development with regulations.

Liberals love to blame slower growth in government spending for low job numbers, but Texas cut spending by $11 billion and job growth exploded.  Government spending is a barrier to prosperity.

While Obama is burying the United States in massive deficits, Texas is sitting atop an $8 billion budget surplus.  Not only is a Texas not running a deficit; unlike Obama’s government, we can pay off our debts.

Texas has a healthy, booming economy because we saw what Obama was doing and did the opposite.  While Obama is giving up on job creation, Texas is busy trying to fill jobs.

If Obama really cares about the millions suffering under his economy, he’ll drop the canned speech filled with the same failed liberalism.  Obama needs to adopt the Texas model of low taxes, smart regulations, and a booming oil and gas industry.

“Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may.”– General Sam Houston, First President of the Republic of Texas

 

 

Donny Ferguson

Senior Communications Adviser

U.S. Representative Steve Stockman (TX-36)

202-225-1555

Barack Obama: George W. Bush Fan Or Foe?

Barack Obama Change sign SC Barack Obama: George W. Bush Fan or Foe?

Prior to being elected President, Barack Obama came across as a real outsider hoping to bring change to a failing system personified in one man: then-President of the United States George W. Bush. Indeed, much of the criticism leveled against Bush was valid. He and the Congress had started long and costly wars in Afghanistan and Iraq at a time when America could ill afford to be spending such amounts, given the precarious state of its public finances. Bush had made compromises with treasured civil liberties by passing the invasive Patriot Act and indefinitely detaining suspects at Guantanamo Bay. Some of these suspects at Guantanamo Bay had been tortured by the American authorities. George W. Bush had been a combination of the worst traits of Republicans and Democrats; he had combined the aggressive militarism and nationalism of Republicans, hated by many people worldwide, with the free spending ways of the liberal Democrats, leading to the worst public finances this nation had ever seen (that is, before Barack Obama’s presidency). He gave Obama a mess that unfortunately has been further complicated by Obama instead of cleaned up. Indeed, while many admired George W. Bush’s personal decency, as far as policy was concerned, many began to see Bush’s policies for what they were: disasters.

Many of these things should be no mystery to anyone after Obama rightfully criticized Bush over and over again in the 2008 campaign. It has been noted by some writers that Obama’s policies have been very oddly a continuation of much of what Bush’s policies were while he was in office. Of course, there have been differences as one would hope to see between a “conservative” Republican and a far-left Democrat, but the similarities have been uncanny. Obama has continued Bush’s interventionist ways and has compiled a record of spending that matches his largess.

That is why it was no surprise to see Barack Obama get up and roundly praise the man whom he had routinely condemned to get elected. To see him chum around with the former Presidents both left and right showed what a sham his criticisms of Bush had been. Bush was transformed from the almost devilish figure he had been to Obama in his early days to a man of “compassion and generosity,” a real example (in Obama’s eyes) of what a leader should be. It is clear that Barack Obama has joined the “world’s most exclusive club” and has forgotten the very reasons why he wanted to be elected in the first place. It was also no surprise to see George W. Bush praised by Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton in addition to Obama. Maybe this “conservative” President, this “Reaganite,” is a little more to the left than we had assumed. Maybe our current President is a little more of an insider and a statist than he appeared to be in order to get elected to the world’s most powerful office. Food for thought, at least.

 

F. Peter Brown is an Associate Editor at the Western Center for Journalism and Editor at the Sound Money Institute. Follow him on Twitter @FPBLibertarian .

 

Photo Credit: Dustin C. Oliver Creative Commons

Michael Savage Attacks Leftist Actor

Specifically, he attacks Ben Affleck, who directed the award-winning Jimmy Carter tribute/movie titled “Argo.”

Taxpayers Shell Out Nearly $3.7M For Ex-presidents

President Clinton SC Taxpayers shell out nearly $3.7M for ex presidents

WASHINGTON — Former President Bill Clinton’s 8,300-square-foot Harlem office near the Apollo Theater costs taxpayers nearly $450,000. George W. Bush spends $85,000 on telephone fees, and another $60,000 on travel. Jimmy Carter sends $15,000 worth of postage — all on the government’s dime.

The most exclusive club in the world has a similarly exclusive price tag — nearly $3.7 million, according to a new report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. That’s how much the federal government spent last year on the four living ex-presidents and one presidential widow.

Topping the list in 2012 was George W. Bush, who got just over $1.3 million last year.

Under the Former Presidents Act, previous inhabitants of the Oval Office are given an annual pension equivalent to a Cabinet secretary’s salary — about $200,000 last year, plus $96,000 a year for a small office staff. Taxpayers also pick up the tab for other items like staff benefits, travel, office space and postage.

The $3.7 million taxpayers shelled out in 2012 is about $200,000 less than in 2011, and the sum in 2010 was even higher. It’s a drop in the bucket compared with the trillions the federal government spends each year.

Read More at OfficialWire . By Josh Lederman.

Caddell Unloads On ‘Racketeering’ GOP Consultants

Caddell CPAC Caddell Unloads On Racketeering GOP Consultants

Pat Caddell, the Fox News Contributor and Democrat pollster who engineered Jimmy Carter’s 1976 Presidential victory, blew the lid off CPAC on Thursday with a blistering attack on “racketeering” Republican consultants who play wealthy donors like “marks.”

“I blame the donors who allow themselves to be played for marks. I blame the people in the grassroots for allowing themselves to be played for suckers….It’s time to stop being marks. It’s time to stop being suckers. It’s time for you people to get real,” he told the audience that included two top Republican consultants.

Caddell stole the show as a panelist in the breakout session titled “Should We Shoot All the Consultants Now?” He spoke with a fire and passion that electrified the room. When the session began the large room was half filled, but as word spread of the fireworks going on inside, the audience streamed in. By the end, it was standing room only.

Breitbart News spoke with Caddell prior to his talk, and he promised he would deliver a “brutal critique” of the Republican establishment and its political consulting class. He did not disappoint, pulling no punches with an unyielding evisceration of a small group of Republican consultants, the Romney campaign, the Republican National Committee, and Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS Super PAC.

“When you have the Chief of Staff of the Republican National Committee and the political director of the Romney campaign, and their two companies get $150 million at the end of the campaign for the ‘fantastic’ get-out-the-vote program…some of this borders on RICO [the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act] violations,” Caddell told the crowd. “It’s all self dealing going on. I think it works on the RICO thing. They’re in the business of lining their pockets.”

 Read More at breitbart.com . By Michael Patrick Leahy.

Obama’s Outrages

Angry Obama SC Obamas Outrages

As if it isn’t glaringly obvious, the America-Destroyer-in-Chief has ramped up his attacks exponentially since he got away with the massive voter fraud that gave him the election. He’s continued his policy of nominating far-left, incompetent crooks and extremists to important positions of power, a policy that couldn’t work without the complicity and connivance of the Republican Establishment. And that is just for starters.

The tactic of nominating America-hating radicals has resulted in Sonia Sotomayor (a racist and radical feminist) and Elena Kagan (a probable lesbian, radical feminist, and political hack as justices of the Supreme Court); avowed communist Van Jones as “Green Jobs Czar”; radical wackos Cass Sunstein and John Holdren; and dozens of other “Czars” – a total of 45 of ‘em – sticking their noses and greedy leftist fingers into the people’s business and getting paid $158,000 per year and up of the taxpayers’ money to do it. The Republican Establishment has done nothing to rid us of these unconstitutional human monkey wrenches. The silence has been deafening.

To make bad worse, one of these “Czars,” John Brennan, who at best is an Islamist extremist sympathizer and promoter and at worst is a genuine closet radical Muslim, was just approved as new head of the CIA by the spineless parasites in what used to be the United States Senate, but now is just a rubber-stamp for the Marxist in the White House. Voting for this disaster-in-the-making were some of the usual dither-and-cave RINOs – John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Susan Collins (R-ME), Bob Corker (R-TN), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Dan Coats (R-IN), and Richard Burr (R-NC). But joining this shameful throng were some supposed conservatives – Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Tea Party heroes Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Marco Rubio (R-FL).

Rubio and Flake also voted to confirm traitor John Kerry as Secretary of State of Disarray, as did all but three Republicans. Only four Republicans voted to confirm leftist Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Surrender, but one of them was the Great Conservative Hope, Rand Paul (R-KY). Paul and Flake also voted to confirm Jack Lew, the originator of the Sequester, as Head Looter…er…um…Treasury Secretary (FYI, Ted Cruz of Texas is the only Senator who has voted No on all of Obama’s nominations). Orrin Hatch was quoted as saying, “I am bending over backwards to show deference to the president’s nomination, and I hope that doesn’t go unnoticed”; and this seems to sum up the “thinking” of Republicans in the Senate.

Taking their cues from the Fraud in the White House, Kerry and unindicted felon Eric Holder both pushed the outrage envelope even further. The State of Disarray Department, in cahoots with Michelle Obama, was caught trying to give the prestigious International Woman of Courage award to Samira Ibrahim, a known anti-American and anti-Semitic activist from Egypt. When this was exposed, they backed off and withdrew the offer – for now. And Eric Holder had to be brow-beaten into conceding that murdering American citizens who posed no imminent danger on American soil, without any due process, was unconstitutional. However, the government recently claimed that their drone technology can tell if a person is carrying a weapon. Thus, after the fact, they can claim that the victim was armed and therefore a legal target. Again, hardly a peep of outrage from Republicans. To his credit, Rand Paul did publicly protest. But, to their ever-growing shame, John McCain and Lindsey Graham proclaimed murder by dictatorial fiat to be something they approved of.

Obama’s pals and supporters in the “mainstream” Fifth Column media, Congress, and elsewhere showed exactly where their politics and sympathies lie in their reaction to the death of communist dictator and Obama role model Hugo Chavez. Democrats in Congress issued statements of sympathy and praise; and two Democrat congressmen – one sitting and one former – actually attended the funeral, as did wastes of food Jesse Jackson and Sean Penn. Disgraced former Democrat President Jimmy Carter broke new America-hating ground with a statement lauding the dead thug that topped all his previous public stupidity by a significant margin. Obama, portrayed by the Fifth Column as the leader of the Democrat Party, said nothing to the contrary and thus gave his approval of this despicable show of anti-Americanism.

On a much more ominous note, the brilliant foreign policy of Obama, the confused and inept actions of the State of Disarray Department, and the totally mixed messages coming from the Department of Surrender have pushed and enabled desperate and deranged dictator Kim Jong Un of North Korea to seriously threaten to launch a nuclear attack on America. The good news is they are only capable of hitting wacko leftist West Coast cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles. But combined with Iran being inches away from having their own nuclear weapons, it is almost certain that the erstwhile Nobel Peace Prize winner is about to drag us into another war, this time a nuclear one.

Where is the outrage?

Photo credit: SS&SS (Creative Commons)

Men Earn Less Under Obama Than Carter

President Obama face WH photo SC Men Earn Less Under Obama Than Carter

New findings show that the real earning power of men is on the decline, with most earning less today adjusting for inflation than they did when Jimmy Carter was president 34 years ago.

Women, however, are doing much better, taking home more than they did in the late 70s, although they still earn less overall than their male counterparts.

In 1979, according to Face the Facts, a project of George Washington University, the median weekly wage for men 16 and older was $844, compared to $832 in 2011.

The youngest male workers have been hit the hardest. Those in the 16-24 age group have seen their real weekly wages plummet from $566 in 1979 to $455 in 2011, a drop of $111 a week.

Read more at Newsmax. By Lisa Barron.

Trying To Be Accepted Doesn’t Win Elections!

GOP SC Trying to be Accepted Doesnt Win Elections!

Do the Republicans actually think that catering towards any form of amnesty, even if any of the proposed laws have parameters that sound tough on illegal immigrants towards their “path to eventual citizenship,” will bring them the eventual support they need in the future to acquire positions in the halls of Congress?  Or leadership in the White House?  Really?

There was an interesting piece on the Mark Levin show on Monday where Levin pointed out that administrations and presidential races from 1980 to 2012 have never been in favor of Republicans when it comes to amnesty.  No matter what happens, whether an immigrant breaks the law and comes across the border illegally, or if they obey the law and go through the true path to citizenship that every immigrant should, most of them will always vote for the Democratic Party.  Let’s take a moment and go through the different administrations and races and see if the Hispanic votes ever leaned in the direction of the Republicans, even when they did favor a form of amnesty.

Number one:  In 1980, President Jimmy Carter received 56% of the Hispanic vote; Ronald Reagan only received 35% of the vote.

Number Two:  In 1984, when President Reagan said he supported amnesty, the President received only 37% of the Hispanic vote – a 2% increase from his previous run – and the Democratic contender Walter Mondale had received a whopping 61%.  It’s also interesting to note that Reagan won both elections with massive landslides.

Number Three:  In 1988, Michael Dukakis received 69% of the Hispanic vote; and George H. W. Bush only received 30% of the Hispanic vote.  It is important to keep in mind that Bush was Ronald Reagan’s Vice President when Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which Reagan later admitted was his biggest mistake.  Does anyone remember who won that election?

Number Four:  In the 2000 election, Vice President Al Gore received 62% of the Hispanic vote; and George W. Bush only received 35%.  Bush had received only 5% more in Hispanic votes in the 2004 election and still won.  Any form of amnesty doesn’t work in anyone’s favor.  A child is never going to respect their parents if they are given everything they want.  When a child who had well-rounded parents who loved them unconditionally (yet instilled real discipline) grows up, they usually look back on their parents with respect and admiration.  This may not always be the case, but usually it is.  The point is that when the Jindals of the Republican Party start touting their horn about “working to be accepting in the eyes of minorities and new immigrants,” they need to be ignored because their sad and annoying words don’t win elections.

Photo credit: DonkeyHotey (Creative Commons)

 

All The Presidents’ Women

War on Women SC All the Presidents Women

At least Romney had binders. Binders full of qualified women to fill cabinet positions, that is. Democrats mercilessly pounded Romney for the binders comment he made during the 2012 presidential campaign, but I’ll bet the Obama campaign now wishes Romney had passed the binders on to Obama since it seems he’s having a hard time picking women to fill his second term cabinet positions.

The recently released official White House photo of a predominately pale-faced and testosterone-filled cabinet (which I have no problem with) is enough to cause any misinformed voter into wondering what has become of the so-called party of women.

To be fair, women fill about half the White House staff positions; but the highest-level cabinet positions are currently extremely male and predominantly white. This seems a bit odd, considering the media narrative over the past 50 years has painted Republicans as the party of rich white men. But that’s not the case, if you look at the actual highest-level cabinet positions women were appointed to since Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR).

FDR appointed Frances Perkins as the first female cabinet member in 1933. Democrat presidential successors Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson appointed zero.

Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed Oveta Culp Hobby as the first secretary of the US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; and Republican president Richard M. Nixon, zero.

At that point in history, after four Democrat and two Republican presidents, two female cabinet members were appointed, one per party.

Republican president Gerald Ford appointed Carla Anderson Hills as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; and then Democrat president Jimmy Carter appointed Shirley Ann Mount Hufstedler as Secretary of Education, Patricia Roberts Harris as Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary, and Juanita Morris Kreps as Commerce Secretary. The score: Democrats 4 and Republicans 2.

Republican Ronald Reagan appointed Margaret Heckler as HHS Secretary, Ann McLaughlin Korologos as Secretary of Labor, and Elizabeth Dole as Transportation Secretary. Reagan’s successor, Republican president George H.W. Bush, appointed Elizabeth Dole as Labor Secretary, Lynn Morley Martin as his second Labor Secretary, and Barbara Hackman Franklin as Secretary of Commerce. Democrats: 4, and Republicans: 8.

Democrat president Bill Clinton, who thoroughly enjoyed women in the White House, only appointed five women to his cabinet during both terms. Clinton appointed Hazel Reid O’Leary as Energy Secretary, Alexis Margaret Herman as Labor Secretary, Madeleine Albright as Secretary of State, Janet Reno as Attorney General, and Donna Shalala as HHS Secretary. Democrats: 9.

And then there was George W. Bush, God love him. Bush haters may want to take a deep breath before reading how many women he appointed to his cabinet. Gale Ann Norton was the first female Secretary of the Interior, Condoleezza Rice became the first female African American Secretary of State, Elaine Chao enjoyed two terms as Labor Secretary, Ann Veneman was appointed as US Secretary of Agriculture, Margaret Spellings served as Education Secretary, and Maria Cino served as acting Transportation Secretary (until another female, Mary E. Peters, was nominated to that position.) Christine Todd Whitman was appointed as EPA Administrator; and, for a total of nine female appointees, Bush appointed Susan Carol Schwab as US Trade Representative in 2006. Republicans: 17.

This takes us to President Obama, who, in his first term appointed to his cabinet six women including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Commerce Rebecca Blank, Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. So far, Obama’s appointed zero new women for his second.

Since FDR, the Democrat Party has governed over 12 presidential terms with seven presidents, who combined, accounted for 15 female nominees as compared to the GOP’s nine terms, six presidents and 17 female nominees. It seems the “Party of Women” is actually the Republican Party, which doesn’t fit the mold cast by Democrats of a party filled with pregnant, barefoot soccer-moms who forgot to pay for their birth control.

Photo Credit: naralprochoiceamerica (Creative Commons)

Leftist Judge Rules Against Ballot Security To Prevent Election Fraud!

fraud Leftist Judge rules against Ballot Security to Prevent Election Fraud!

31 years ago, the RNC entered into a consent agreement to settle a lawsuit brought by the DNC not to peruse suspected voter fraud or prevent voter fraud. The RNC has been held to that consent agreement to this day. Each time they go to court to remove the consent agreement, a particular judge comes out of retirement to rule against the RNC requests.

New Jersey District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise, appointed by Jimmy Carter, ruled to keep in place a 30-year-old restriction against the RNC “which is national in scope, limiting the Republican National Committee ‘s ability to engage or assist in voter fraud prevention”

The judge cited voter suppression of minorities outweighing the impact of voter fraud.

There are serious reasons for concern of voter fraud:

1) Pew Research Center states in 2012 -

“Voter registration in the United States largely reflects its 19th-century origins and has not kept pace with advancing technology and a mobile society. States’ systems must be brought into the 21st century to be more accurate, cost-effective, and efficient.

Research commissioned by the Pew Center on the States highlights the extent of the challenge:

  • Approximately 24 million—one of every eight—voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate.
  • More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters.
  • Approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.”

2)  The American people support voter ID laws by an overwhelming 74% (Washington Post.)

Hispanic Americans support voter ID laws by an overwhelming 71 % (Pew Research Center.)

3) The presidential election of 2000 was won by only 500 votes.

4) Local elections can be won by just a handful of votes.

5) People who believe their vote does not count or will be canceled out by fraud are unlikely to bother to vote.

Multiple left leaning groups are being criminally investigated for voter fraud schemes in the swing state of Florida.

6) 160 counties in the U.S. have more registered voters than people living in those counties.

Question: Have you seen any documented examples of voter suppression?

They appear to only be in Michelle Obama’s dreams.

Judicial Watch challenged her accusation, but it went unanswered.

Scott Gessler, CO Sec of State stated: “These accusations are built on a foundation of sand,” referring to voter suppression. He also states that the opposition to voter ID is well-financed and organized. “Disenfranchisement hysteria is, frankly, silly”

During a 1981 gubernatorial election in New Jersey, concern was raised over voter suppression; and the Democratic National Committee sued the RNC. That one incident in NJ 30 years ago came with a “consent decree”, stipulating that the RNC was prohibited from pre-election “ballot security” activates:

As modified in 1987, the Decree defined “ballot security activates” to mean “ballot integrity, ballot security or other efforts to prevent or remedy vote fraud.

One section is particularly disturbing. Areas where minorities are living are in particular off limits for voter fraud protection measures. What message does this send to the DNC? Answer: Voter fraud will be allowed in minority areas; please target your efforts in those neighborhoods as this court is giving you a get-out-of-jail free card:

(e) refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the actual conduct of, such activities there and where a purpose or significant effect of such activities is to deter qualified voters from voting; and the conduct of such activities disproportionately in or directed toward districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations shall be considered relevant evidence of the existence of such a factor and purpose;

It should come as no surprise that voter fraud issues are rampant in the swing states districts where minorities make up a large percentage of the population.

Furthermore, the Court held that the RNC was barred from asserting this argument because the RNC willingly entered the Decree as a means of settling the initial 1981 lawsuit and the RNC again consented to the Decree, as modified, in 1987. The District Court also held that the Decree did not violate the First Amendment because, under the Decree, the RNC is free to communicate with state parties about subjects other than ballot security. Additionally, the Court noted that the First Amendment applies only to state actions and does not prevent private parties from agreeing to refrain from certain types of speech.

Prior to the 2012 elections, the RNC again attempted to have the consent decree vacated. An Obama-appointed Judge Joseph Greenway, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit, denied the petition.

This past week’s ruling on Monday, January the 14th by the SCOTUS to refuse to hear the case brought by the RNC to end the consent order suggests there will be no end to rampant voter fraud; this ruling is an open invitation to the DNC and it’s affiliates to perpetrate fraud with no repercussions, accountability, or scrutiny.

Obama won the 2012 election by 400,000 votes in 4 swing states. All of these states had precincts that had statistical miracles of 99% of the vote going to Obama and voter registration numbers far in excess of their actual population counts. Additionally, all of these same states had claims of voter machine errors changing individual votes cast from Romney to Obama. With the RNC’s hands tied, barring them from any action to remedy the situation, we are bound for more of the same in the upcoming 2014 and 2016 election cycles.

No U.S. citizen should ever have to wonder if their vote was canceled out by a fraudulent vote. The system is set up to fail the legitimate voter; we demand integrity, full transparency, and accountability in our elections!

What is the solution to this predicament? See my article Addressing Voter Fraud – A 14 Point Plan For 2013. Force action by your State Representatives and Governors, or be content to be obsolete.