Search the Community

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/19/five-times-obama-presidential-candidate-questioned-validity-election-process/ Five Times Obama as a Presidential Hopeful Questioned the Validity of the Election Process 6151 21 by JEFF POOR19 Oct 2016444 SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER President Barack Obama accuses Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump of “whining,” after his repeated statements on the upcoming presidential election being “rigged.” At a joint news conference with Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, Obama says: However, as a presidential candidate Obama expressed concerns about the validity of U.S. elections. On numerous occasions before being sworn in as commander-in-chief, Obama decried flaws in the American election system, which included voter ID laws, rhetoric from Bush administration Justice Department officials and the agency’s traditional handling of voter fraud investigations. In 2008, shortly before the general election, Obama even had acknowledged that elections had been “monkeyed” with in the past. 1) October 20, 2006 – Barack Obama in a joint press release with Rep. John Lewis and then-Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) accused the Georgia State Board of Elections of a “cynical attempt” to influence elections when a letter was inadvertently sent out telling voters to bring “proper government-issued photo identification” to the polls shortly after a Georgia Superior Court judge ruled the requirement violated the state constitution. Partial press statement: 2) September 28, 2007 – Then-Sen. Barack Obama address gives remarks at the Howard University convocation in Washington, DC. In the speech to the audience at the HBCU, Obama vowed to scale back voter-fraud investigations in black and Latino districts and pursue investigations into voter suppression if elected president. Remarks: 3) October 19, 2007 – Then-Sen. Obama called on a the head of the Bush Justice Department’s voting rights division John Tanner to be fired for saying voter ID laws hurt the elderly but aren’t a problem for minorities because they often die before old age. Obama called the remarks “patently erroneous, offensive, and dangerous”given they had come from a federal official charged with protecting voting rights in America. Letter as follows: 4) April 28, 2008 – Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama decried a Supreme Court decision that upheld Indiana’s voter ID law. He called the state’s voter ID law and other like it “discriminatory barriers to the right to vote” in a written statement on the heels of the ruling. Written statement as follows: “I will continue to fight to ensure that all of our citizens have equal and unfettered access to the polls, including Indiana voters on May 6. Although I believe today’s decision is wrong, I am encouraged that the court has not completely closed the door to future challenges to state voter ID laws that create discriminatory barriers to the right to vote.” 5) September 4, 2008 – Then-Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama was asked about a “rigged” election at a rally at Ohio’s Kent State University. Obama admitted throughout history both Democrats and Republicans had “monkeyed” with elections. As president, he vowed to have a “non-partisan” division of the Justice Department committed to voting rights. Remarks as follows: Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor

Rotten Tomatoes critics give @HillarysAmerica a 4% but audience rating is 79%. Biggest disparity they've ever had. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hillarys_america_the_secret_history_of_the_democratic_party/

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2604716/

http://truepundit.com/nypd-hillary-clinton-was-wearing-invisible-earpiece-to-receive-stealth-coaching-during-live-nbc-tv-town-hall/

Barry in 2012: "If you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences." Barry's bogus lred ine in the sand

I checked the link I posted yesterday that went to his site and its gone Fucking fraud got outed http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/02/khizr-khan-deletes-law-firm-website-proving-financially-benefits-pay-play-muslim-migration/ Khizr Khan, the Muslim Gold Star father that Democrats and their allies media wide have been using to hammer GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump, has deleted his law firm’s website from the Internet. This development is significant, as his website proved—as Breitbart News and others have reported—that he financially benefits from unfettered pay-to-play Muslim migration into America. A snapshot of his now deleted website, as captured by the Wayback Machine which takes snapshots archiving various websites on the Internet, shows that as a lawyer he engages in procurement of EB5 immigration visas and other “Related Immigration Services.” The website is completely removed from the Internet, and instead directs visitors to the URL at which it once was to a page parking the URL run by GoDaddy. The EB5 program, which helps wealthy foreigners usually from the Middle East essentially buy their way into America, is fraught with corruption. U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has detailed such corruption over the past several months, and in February issued a blistering statement about it. “Maybe it is only here on Capitol Hill—on this island surrounded by reality—that we can choose to plug our ears and refuse to listen to commonly accepted facts,” Grassley said in a statement earlier this year. “The Government Accountability Office, the media, industry experts, members of congress, and federal agency officials, have concurred that the program is a serious problem with serious vulnerabilities. Allow me to mention a few of the flaws.” Grassley’s statement even noted that the program Khan celebrated on his website has posed national security risks. “There are also classified reports that detail the national security, fraud and abuse. Our committee has received numerous briefings and classified documents to show this side of the story,” Grassley said in the early February 2016 statement. “The enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland Security wrote an internal memo that raises significant concerns about the program. One section of the memo outlines concerns that it could be used by Iranian operatives to infiltrate the United States. The memo identifies seven main areas of program vulnerability, including the export of sensitive technology, economic espionage, use by foreign government agents and terrorists, investment fraud, illicit finance and money laundering.” Khan spoke alongside his wife Ghazala Khan at the Democratic National Convention last week in Philadelphia, and they were honoring their son U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan—a hero who lost his life to a suicide bomber in Iraq in 2004. On behalf of Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic nominee for president, Khizr Khan ripped into Donald Trump’s policies on immigration—specifically bashing his plan to bar Muslim migration from regions afflicted with rampant terrorism into America temporarily until the United States can figure out what’s going on. Khan even brought out a pocket Constitution, claiming inaccurately that Trump’s plans were unconstitutional. That’s not true, as Congress has already granted such power to the president under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952—allowing the president to bar migration of any alien or class of aliens the president sees as a threat to the United States for any reason at any time. Such a class of aliens could be Muslims, or it could be people from a specific region of the world, or any other class—such as someone’s race, weight, height, age, national origin, religion, or anything else. The media, along with Hillary Clinton and her supporters throughout the Democratic Party establishment, has pushed the line of attack against Trump for days. Now on Tuesday, President Barack Obama has said that Trump is “unfit” to serve as President over the matter. Even a group of anti-Trump congressional Republicans has gone after Trump on the matter. But as Breitbart News and other new media have exposed Khan’s various deep political and legal connections to the Clintons—and to Muslim migration—the attack line has crumbled. Now, with Khan deleting his website in an apparent effort to hide his biographical information, the attack is falling apart even more. What’s perhaps interesting is that also on this website that he has now deleted, Khan revealed that he spent nearly a decade working for the mega-D.C. law firm Hogan & Hartson—now Hogan Lovells LLP—which connects him directly with the government of Saudi Arabia and the Clintons themselves. Saudi Arabia, which has retained the firm that Khan worked at for years, has donated between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation. Hillary Clinton, despite the repeated urging of Trump, has refused to return the Clinton Cash money to the Saudis. What’s more, Hogan Lovells also did Hillary Clinton’s taxes—and helped acquire the patents for parts of the technology she used in crafting her illicit home-brew email server that the FBI director called “extremely careless” in handling classified information. What’s more, the entire mainstream has proven negligence with regard to this matter as none of them even thought to look into this Khan guy’s law practice before bandying him about as some kind of magic elixir that cures the country of Trump.

http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/08/02/prof-john-banzhaf-virtually-all-constitutional-scholars-agree-muslim-immigration-ban-would-be-legal/ George Washington University Law School Professor John Banzhaf was a guest on Tuesday’s Breitbart News Daily, where he discussed the constitutionality of Donald Trump’s proposed ban on Muslim immigration with SiriusXM host Stephen K. Bannon. Bannon asked if Democratic National Convention speaker Khizr Khan was correct to assert that Trump’s idea violated the Constitution, a point he made by waving a pocket copy of the document and asking if Trump has ever read it. Banzhaf said it was the view of “virtually all constitutional professors who have written on the topic” that Khan was wrong. “First of all, it is legal under current law for the president – by himself, without even getting the consent of Congress – under current law, Title VIII, Section 1182, to prohibit – well, I’ll read it.” He read, “‘Any aliens, or any class of aliens, into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the U.S.'” Therefore, he said, “He doesn’t have to provide any reason for doing it. If Congress joins him, it makes it even stronger, more likely to be constitutional.” “We’ve done this for over a hundred years,” Banzhaf noted. “We had something called the Chinese Exclusion Act, which is excluding, obviously, people on the basis of race.” “Reason Number One why it is constitutional is something called the Plenary Power Doctrine. What this says, in simple terms, is that the ordinary constitutional protections, primarily equal protection, do not apply to people who are not U.S. citizens, and who are trying to enter the country,” he said. “This has been true for over a hundred years. Our Supreme Court has, time after time, turned away objections to restrictions based upon race, national origin, political belief, even under free speech grounds.” He continued: So, on that ground, very clearly it’s constitutional. The other is, even if we just look within the United States at people who are already here, what the courts have said is that you can distinguish on the basis of factors like race or religion, if it serves a compelling state interest, and if it is only one of several factors. Elaborating, Banzhaf stated: That’s the reason why, for example, we have affirmative action. Colleges can discriminate on the basis of race because we want to have diversity. Well, preventing terrorism is at least as important as having diversity in the classroom, and so as long as race is used as only one factor – or, in this case, religion is used as only one factor – we can apply different standards even in the U.S., for example in secondary searches on airplanes. Banzhaf said it was a problem for the U.S. that “a lot of people haven’t read the Constitution,” but they “kinda think anything which they don’t like, any proposal which they don’t like, is both unconstitutional and un-American.” He pointed to the current controversy regarding the Muslim immigration ban, which he again noted was a perfect mirror image of affirmative action, and rattled off a list of prominent politicians who have no doubts about the constitutionality of the latter: “Governor Jeb Bush, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, Rep. Peter King, a woman named Hillary Clinton, President Barack Obama, and one of our most Democratic senators, Chuck Schumer.” He further noted that effective anti-terrorism programs involve this sort of allegedly unconstitutional discrimination based on race and religion, but support for such initiatives has not harmed the political fortunes of such figures as the NYPD’s Ray Kelly, who has been touted as a potential secretary of Homeland Security. “A lot of people have supported the basic idea that, particularly to protect against terrorism, we can, to some extent, distinguish on the basis of factors like religion,” Banzhaf said, adding: So, for example, rather than treating all passengers exactly the same – same risk, 6-year-old child, 98-year-old Asian woman, no greater risk than a young Arabic or Muslim male, which makes no sense at all – we could provide more secondary screening to people who are, for example, young Muslim males or young Arabic males. That only makes sense, with regard to people coming into the country. “I’m not saying whether it’s a good idea or a bad idea, but it would be constitutional, as we said, to bar all Muslims trying to come in.” He then suggested: Another compromise proposal might be, because we can’t vet them very well when they’re coming in as refugees, we don’t have the paperwork and so on, we could say, “Okay, where there are doubts, we’re going to let you in, but we’re going to ask you to wear an ankle tracer.” Banzhaf offered further details of how such a program would work and analyzed its constitutionality: We do that for people who are arrested for drunk driving and so on. It makes it a lot easier to track them – and, as you know, from our Paris experience and for others, one of the big problems is, there are a lot of people out there. The authorities are worried about them. There are lots of red flags, but they can’t track them 24 hours a day. Therefore, they don’t do anything. If you have ankle bracelets, one guy can sit in a room with a hundred television screens, track their movements – either in real-time or retroactively if something happens. If they wander near airports, or nuclear facilities, or some place which is suspicious, then the authorities can do something. Would it work? I don’t know. Would it be constitutional? Almost certainly yes. Banzhaf allowed that he has not followed everything Trump has said about his proposal to temporarily ban Muslim immigration. “Quite frankly, I get the impression that his plan is not too clear or precisely spelled out,” he said. He summarized: But the basic idea of limiting, or even preventing, the importation of non-citizens into the U.S. to become citizens, based upon factors like religion, or race, or nationality, I think virtually all constitutional scholars would say they may not like it, but we can’t say it’s unconstitutional, particularly given this Plenary Power Doctrine, the equal protection clause does not apply to foreigners seeking admission to the U.S. That’s been the law for over a hundred years. Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.

It's a hassle pasting full articles from these mobile devices, so open link http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/khan-specializes-in-visa-programs-accused-of-selling-u.s.-citizenship/article/2598279 Khan specializes in visa programs accused of selling U.S. citizenship