Among the issues most commonly discussed are individuality, the rights of the individual, the limits of legitimate government, morality, history, economics, government policy, science, business, education, health care, energy, and man-made global warming evaluations. My posts are aimed at intelligent and rational individuals, whose comments are very welcome.

"No matter how vast your knowledge or how modest, it is your own mind that has to acquire it." Ayn Rand

"Observe that the 'haves' are those who have freedom, and that it is freedom that the 'have-nots' have not." Ayn Rand

"The virtue involved in helping those one loves is not 'selflessness' or 'sacrifice', but integrity." Ayn Rand

For "a human being, the question 'to be or not to be,' is the question 'to think or not to think.'" Ayn Rand
Showing posts with label Judicial Watch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judicial Watch. Show all posts

15 January 2022

Judicial Watch Defends Election Integrity by Insisting Voter Registration Rolls Be Accurate

Judicial Watch is a non-profit organization that works hard for government transparency, the rule of law, and the legitimacy of elections.  It is pursuing its on-going effort to get county and state governments to clean up their voter registration rolls as they are required to do by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).  The following paragraphs are from an email they just sent to me.  If this is an important issue to you, it is well worth reading.  If you think it is not an important issue, you will likely change your mind, if you are rational, when you read this:


The numbers of potentially ineligible voters identified in the new Judicial Watch probe are staggering. The NVRA requires states to remove registrations of voters who fail to respond to an address confirmation request and then fail to vote in two consecutive elections. States are required by federal law to report to Congress how many ineligible voters are removed from their rolls for this reason. Judicial Watch mined the statutory reporting data for some astonishing revelations: over the most recent four-year reporting period, large counties in powerful states such as New York and California reported few or no removals of ineligible voters from voting rolls.

For example, in the heart of New York City, Manhattan, with 1.2 million registered voters, state authorities removed a grand total of two ineligible voters from voting rolls for failing to respond to a notice and vote, according to data New York itself provided to Congress.

In Brooklyn, with 1.7 million registered voters, the number removed for this reason: zero. In Queens, with 1.3 million registered voters, the number removed as ineligible: zero. In the Bronx, with 867,000 voters: one ineligible voter was removed. In Staten Island, with 344,000 voters: zero.

The story is the same in California. Large counties show impossibly small number of ineligible voters removed from voting rolls for failing to respond to a notice and vote. In San Bernardino County in Greater Los Angeles, with a county population of 1.2 million registered voters, a total of fourteen ineligible voters were removed from the voting rolls for the entire four-year reporting period, according to data the state provided to federal officials. For Sacramento County, with over one million registered voters: zero removed. In Fresno County, with more than 500,000 registered voters: two ineligible voters removed.

“About 10% of Americans move every year,” notes Robert Popper, Judicial Watch’s director of voting integrity efforts. “Those counties should generate hundreds of thousands of cancelled registrations. There is simply no way to comply with federal law while removing so few outdated registrations under its key provision.”

Judicial Watch sent warning letters to state election officials in five states—New York, California, Oregon, Arkansas, and Illinois—noting the impossibly low numbers of statutory removals. The warning letters give the state 90 days to correct the record. “If the data are incorrect,” the Judicial Watch letters note, “please provide what you believe to be the correct numbers.” If the numbers are not corrected or otherwise resolved within 90 days, “we will commence a federal lawsuit.” Read the letters here.

Judicial Watch supporters know that this is not our first rodeo.

In California, we uncovered 1.6 million inactive voters on electoral rolls in Los Angeles County and sued, forcing LA to clean up its act.

We sued Pennsylvania for failing to make reasonable efforts to remove ineligible voters from their rolls. Pennsylvania revised its numbers, admitting it had reported incorrect information to a federal agency on the removal of ineligible voters. But even the new figures are too low. Pennsylvania now admits that in eighteen other counties—which together contain twenty-five percent of the entire state’s registered voters—it removed a grand total of fifteen inactive, ineligible voters in a two-year period.

We went to court in Colorado, where studies have shown that a majority of the state’s counties have registration rates that exceed 100% of the voting-age population. Our lawsuit charges “an ongoing, systemic problem with Colorado’s voter list maintenance obligations.”

We filed a lawsuit in North Carolina for the same reason—large numbers of ineligible voters on the state voter rolls.

We’ve successfully taken on Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana as well. In Ohio, a Supreme Court decision upheld a voter-roll cleanup stemming from a Judicial Watch lawsuit. In Kentucky, we sued for a voter-roll cleanup and won. Indiana agreed to clean up its rolls after Judicial Watch launched an investigation.


I hope you can also see that Judicial Watch is an organization worthy of the financial support of those of us for whom individual rights are of paramount importance.

16 October 2020

Voter Registration in 353 Counties in 29 States Exceeds 100% of Eligible Voters -- Says Judicial Watch

Judicial Watch has long been working to force reluctant local and state governments to comply with the federal law that requires them to keep accurate voter registration rolls.  This is a critical task if we are to have legitimate elections and it is one of several reasons why I am a Judicial Watch contributor.

Judicial Watch has released an updated study of the problem.  This problem is especially acute when the states are sending out mass mailings of ballots to everyone on the absurdly inflated voter registration rolls.  The highlights of the results follow from an email I just received from Judicial Watch:

Voter Registration in 353 Counties in 29 States Exceeds 100%

In 2018 the Supreme Court upheld a voter-roll cleanup program that resulted from our settlement of a federal lawsuit with Ohio. California settled a NVRA lawsuit with us and last year began the process of removing up to 1.6 million inactive names from Los Angeles County’s voter rolls. Kentucky also began a cleanup of hundreds of thousands of old registrations last year after it entered into a consent decree to end another Judicial Watch lawsuit. In September 2020, we sued Illinois for refusing to disclose voter roll data in violation of Federal law.

So we’ve been busy and effective. Unfortunately, the problem persists.

Our newly released study reveals that 353 U.S. counties had 1.8 million more registered voters than eligible voting-age citizens. In other words, the registration rates of those counties exceeded 100% of eligible voters. The study finds eight states showing statewide registration rates exceeding 100%: Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

The September 2020 study collected the most recent registration data posted online by the states themselves. This data was then compared to the Census Bureau’s most recent five-year population estimates, gathered by the American Community Survey (ACS) from 2014 through 2018. ACS surveys are sent to 3.5 million addresses each month, and its five-year estimates are considered to be the most reliable estimates outside of the decennial census.

Our latest study is necessarily limited to 37 states that post regular updates to their registration data. Certain state voter registration lists may also be even larger than reported, because they may have excluded “inactive voters” from their data. Inactive voters, who may have moved elsewhere, are still registered voters and may show up and vote on election day and/or request mail-in ballots.

We rely on our voter registration studies to warn states that they are failing to comply with the requirements of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which requires states to make reasonable efforts to clean their voter rolls. We can and have sued to enforce compliance with federal law.

Earlier this month, we sued Colorado over its failure to comply with the National Voter Registration Act. In our new study, 42 Colorado counties—or two thirds of the state’s counties—had registration rates exceeding 100%. Particular data from the state confirms this general picture. As the complaint explains, a month-by-month comparison of the ACS’s five-year survey period with Colorado’s own registration numbers for the exact same months shows that large proportions of Colorado’s counties have registration rates exceeding 100%. Earlier this year, we sued Pennsylvania and North Carolina for failing to make reasonable efforts to remove ineligible voters from their rolls as required by federal law. The lawsuits allege that the two states have nearly 2 million inactive names on their voter registration rolls. We also sued Illinois for refusing to disclose voter roll data in violation of Federal law.

Our study updates the results of a similar study from last year. In August 2019 we analyzed registration data that states reported to the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) in response to a survey conducted every two years on how states maintain their voter rolls. That registration data was compared to the then-most-recent ACS five-year survey from 2013 through 2017. The study showed that 378 U.S. counties had registration rates exceeding 100%.
The new study shows 1.8 million excess, or ‘ghost’ voters in 353 counties across 29 states. The data highlights the recklessness of mailing blindly ballots and ballot applications to voter registration lists. Dirty voting rolls can mean dirty elections.


STATES AND COUNTIES WITH REGISTRATION RATES EXCEEDING 100%

(* means no separate reporting of inactive registrations)
 
Alabama: Lowndes County (130%); Macon County (114%); Wilcox (113%); Perry County (111%); Madison County (109%); Hale County (108%); Marengo County (108%); Baldwin (108%); Greene County (107%); Washington County (106%); Dallas County (106%); Choctaw County (105%); Conecuh County (105%); Randolph County (104%); Shelby County (104%); Lamar County (103%); Autauga County (103%); Clarke County (103%); Henry County (103%); Monroe County (102%); Colbert County (101%); Jefferson County (101%); Lee County (100%); Houston County (100%); Crenshaw County (100%)

*Alaska: Statewide (111%)

Arizona: Santa Cruz County (107%); Apache County (106%)

*Arkansas: Newton County (103%)

Colorado: Statewide (102%); San Juan County (158%); Dolores County (127%); Jackson County (125%); Mineral County (119%); Ouray County (119%); Phillips County (116%); Douglas County (116%); Broomfield County (115%); Elbert County (113%); Custer County (112%); Gilpin County (111%); Park County (111%); Archuleta County (111%); Cheyenne County (111%); Clear Creek County (110%); Teller County (108%); Grand County (107%); La Plata County (106%); Summit County (106%); Baca County (106%); Pitkin County (106%); San Miguel County (106%); Routt County (106%); Hinsdale County (105%); Garfield County (105%); Gunnison County (105%); Sedgwick County (104%); Eagle County (104%); Larimer County (104%); Weld County (104%); Boulder County (103%); Costilla County (103%); Chaffee County (103%); Kiowa County (103%); Denver County (103%); Huerfano County (102%); Montezuma County (102%); Moffat County (102%); Arapahoe County (102%); Jefferson County (101%); Las Animas County (101%); Mesa County (100%.

*Florida: St. Johns County (112%); Nassau County (109%); Walton County (108%); Santa Rosa County (108%); Flagler County (104%); Clay County (103%); Indian River County (101%); Osceola County (100%)

*Georgia: Bryan County (118%); Forsyth County (114%); Dawson County (113%); Oconee County (111%); Fayette County (111%); Fulton County (109%); Cherokee County (109%); Jackson County (107%); Henry County (106%); Lee County (106%); Morgan County (105%); Clayton County (105%); DeKalb County (105%); Gwinnett County (104%); Greene County (104%); Cobb County (104%); Effingham County (103%); Walton County (102%); Rockdale County (102%); Barrow County (101%); Douglas County (101%); Newton County (100%); Hall County (100%)

*Indiana: Hamilton County (113%); Boone County (112%); Clark County (105%); Floyd County (103%); Hancock County (103%); Ohio County (102%); Hendricks County (102%); Lake County (101%); Warrick County (100%); Dearborn County (100%)
Iowa: Dallas County (115%); Johnson County (104%); Lyon County (103%); Dickinson County (103%); Scott County (102%); Madison County (101%); Warren County (100%)

*Kansas: Johnson County (105%)
Maine: Statewide (101%); Cumberland County (110%); Sagadahoc County (107%); Hancock County (105%); Lincoln County (104%); Waldo County (102%); York County (100%)

Maryland: Statewide (102%); Montgomery County (113%); Howard County (111%); Frederick County (110%); Charles County (108%); Prince George’s County (106%); Queen Anne’s County (104%); Calvert County (104%); Harford County (104%); Worcester County (103%); Carroll County (103%); Anne Arundel County (102%); Talbot County (100%)

*Massachusetts: Dukes County (120%); Nantucket County (115%); Barnstable County (103%)

*Michigan: Statewide (105%); Leelanau County (119%); Otsego County (118%); Antrim County (116%); Kalkaska County (115%); Emmet County (114%); Berrien County (114%); Keweenaw County (114%); Benzie County (113%); Washtenaw County (113%); Mackinac County (112%); Dickinson County (112%); Roscommon County (112%); Charlevoix County (112%); Grand Traverse County (111%); Oakland County (110%); Iron County (110%); Monroe County (109%); Genesee County (109%); Ontonagon County (109%); Gogebic County (109%); Livingston County (109%); Alcona County (108%); Cass County (108%); Allegan County (108%); Oceana County (107%); Midland County (107%); Kent County (107%); Montmorency County (107%); Van Buren County (107%); Wayne County (107%); Schoolcraft County (107%); Mason County (107%); Oscoda County (107%); Iosco County (107%); Wexford County (106%); Presque Isle County (106%); Delta County (106%); Alpena County (106%); St Clair County (106%); Cheboygan County (105%); Newaygo County (105%); Barry County (105%); Gladwin County (105%); Menominee County (105%); Crawford County (105%); Muskegon County (105%); Kalamazoo County (104%); St. Joseph County (104%); Ottawa County (103%); Clinton County (103%); Saginaw County (103%); Manistee County (103%); Lapeer County (103%); Calhoun County (103%); Ogemaw County (103%); Macomb County (103%); Missaukee County (102%); Eaton County (102%); Shiawassee County (102%); Huron County (102%); Lenawee County (101%); Branch County (101%); Osceola County (101%); Clare County (100%); Arenac County (100%); Bay County (100%); Lake County (100%)

*Missouri: St. Louis County (102%)

*Montana: Petroleum County (113%); Gallatin County (103%); Park County (103%); Madison County (102%); Broadwater County (102%)

*Nebraska: Arthur County (108%); Loup County (103%); Keya Paha County (102%); Banner County (100%); McPherson County (100%)

Nevada: Storey County (108%); Douglas County (105%); Nye County (101%)
*New Jersey: Statewide (102%); Somerset County (110%); Hunterdon County (108%); Morris County (107%); Essex County (106%); Monmouth County (104%); Bergen County (103%); Middlesex County (103%); Union County (103%); Camden County (102%); Warren County (102%); Atlantic County (102%); Sussex County (101%); Salem County (101%); Hudson County (100%); Gloucester County (100%)

*New Mexico: Harding County (177%); Los Alamos County (110%)

New York: Hamilton County (118%); Nassau County (109%); New York (103%); Rockland County (101%); Suffolk County (100%)

*Oregon: Sherman County (107%); Crook County (107%); Deschutes County (105%); Wallowa County (103%); Hood River County (103%); Columbia County (102%); Linn County (101%); Polk County (100%); Tillamook County (100%)

Rhode Island: Statewide (101%); Bristol County (104%); Washington County (103%); Providence County (101%)

*South Carolina: Jasper County (103%)

South Dakota: Hanson County (171%); Union County (120%); Jones County (116%); Sully County (115%); Lincoln County (113%); Custer County (110%); Fall River County (108%); Pennington County (106%); Harding County (105%); Minnehaha County (104%); Potter County (104%); Campbell County (103%); McPherson County (101%); Hamlin County (101%); Stanley County (101%); Lake County (100%); Perkins County (100%)

Tennessee: Williamson County (110%); Moore County (101%); Polk County (101%)

Texas: Loving County (187%); Presidio County (149%); McMullen County (147%); Brooks County (117%); Roberts County (116%); Sterling County (115%); Zapata County (115%); Maverick County (112%); Starr County (110%); King County (110%); Chambers County (109%); Irion County (108%); Jim Hogg County (107%); Polk County (107%); Comal County (106%); Oldham County (104%); Culberson County (104%); Kendall County (103%); Dimmit County (103%); Rockwall County (102%); Motley County (102%); Parker County (102%); Hudspeth County (101%); Travis County (101%); Fort Bend County (101%); Kent County (101%); Webb County (101%); Mason County (101%); Crockett County (101%); Waller County (100%); Gillespie County (100%); Duval County (100%); Brewster County (100%)

Vermont: Statewide (100%)

Virginia: Loudoun County (116%); Falls Church City (114%); Fairfax City (109%); Goochland County (108%); Arlington County (106%); Fairfax County (106%); Prince William County (105%); James City County (105%); Alexandria City (105%); Fauquier County (105%); Isle of Wight County (104%); Chesterfield County (104%); Surry County (103%); Hanover County (103%); New Kent County (103%); Clarke County (103%); King William County (102%); Spotsylvania County (102%); Rappahannock County (102%); Albemarle County (101%); Stafford County (101%); Northampton County (101%); Poquoson City (100%); Frederick County (100%)

Washington: Garfield County (119%); Pend Oreille County (112%); Jefferson County (111%); San Juan County (108%); Wahkiakum County (108%); Stevens County (103%); Pacific County (103%); Clark County (102%); Island County (102%); Klickitat County (102%); Thurston County (102%); Lincoln County (101%); Whatcom County (100%); Asotin County (100%)

*West Virginia: Mingo County (104%); Wyoming County (103%); McDowell County (102%); Brooke County (102%); Hancock County (100%)


My Comments:

One of the reasons the Democratic Party opposed the Citizenship question on the 2020 Census so adamantly is because the only way the Census population can be used in the future to spot obviously bloated voter registration polls is if the registered voters exceed the sum of the age-eligible citizens and the same age range of non-citizens, who cannot legally vote.  The Democratic Party, for all its pretense of claiming that every vote must count, has long had a strongly vested interest in inflated voter registration rolls.  Of course, every legal vote is watered down when the dead, the out of district, and non-citizens vote in an election.  The Democratic Party is not concerned with this.

31 October 2015

Impeaching the Crooked Obama IRS Head

Thanks primarily to government e-mails and information obtained by Judicial Watch, House Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) introduced a resolution this week to impeach the IRS commissioner for "high crimes and misdemeanors."  IRS Commissioner Koskinen has obstructed justice while protecting the criminal actions of Lois Lerner, whom the Obama Justice Department has just refused to prosecute even as the investigation into her and other IRS managers' activities is still underway.  

Representative Chaffetz has based his call for impeachment of the IRS Commissioner on these points:


• He failed to comply with a subpoena resulting in destruction of key evidence. Commissioner Koskinen failed to locate and preserve IRS records in accordance with a congressional subpoena and an internal preservation order. The IRS erased 422 backup tapes containing as many as 24,000 of Lois Lerner's emails - key pieces of evidence that were destroyed on Koskinen's watch.

• He failed to testify truthfully and provided false and misleading information. Commissioner Koskinen testified the IRS turned over all emails relevant to the congressional investigation, including all of Ms. Lerner's emails. When the agency determined Ms. Lerner's emails were missing, Commissioner Koskinen testified the emails were unrecoverable. These statements were false.

• He failed to notify Congress that key evidence was missing. The IRS knew Lois Lerner's emails were missing in February 2014. In fact, they were not missing; the IRS destroyed the emails on March 4, 2014. The IRS did not notify Congress the emails were missing until June 2014 - four months later, and well after the White House and the Treasury Department were notified. 


Meanwhile, Obama claims that there is not a smidgen of evidence of wrong-doing in his IRS or his Department of Justice.

06 March 2015

Hillary Clinton -- Lawless, Power-lusting, Opaque, and Now, Finally, Done

Hillary Clinton has hung around and hung around, despite her long record of lawlessness, secrecy to hide her power-lust, and disregard for others.  As an admirer of Saul Alinsky, she, like Obama, is a proponent of class and group warfare who sees oppressors and victims everywhere in American society.  That vision is most useful in justifying never-ending power grabs by government and the politicians who use that power to extort wealth and further power from the People and their private sector enterprises.  As does Obama, she turns a blind eye to the obvious conclusion that her government solution to all problems is flawed because there is no power in the private sector as great as that of government, which is controlled by people even more morally challenged for the most part.

Hillary has always been drawn into corrupt practices.  The Whitewater and Tyson's Chicken scandals while the First "Lady" of Arkansas set the expectations of rational observers before she moved into the White House.  Her unlawful practice of hiding documents and violating transparency laws was early in full evidence when she became First "Lady" of the United States.  She could not find subpenaed documents relating to Whitewater, until they or some subset of them turned up in plain sight quite mysteriously.  Then the HillaryCare fiasco she orchestrated with Ira Magaziner demonstrated a penchant for holding secret meetings that were required to be public meetings.  Hillary removed papers from Vince Foster's office after his mysterious death.  Hillary and Bill accused the operators of the White House Travel Office of wrongdoing, without any justification, in order to try to install their own friends in that job.  What kind of person would send someone to prison in order to gain a job for a friend?

So, it is hardly surprising that we are now hearing that Hillary used her position as Secretary of State to extort and/or to offer favors to nations if they granted money to her foundation.  Alright, it is true that I do not directly and certainly know that favors or harm were promised unless the donations were made.  But the appearance is very bad and what is worse, knowing Hillary's ethics and practice, the rational individual has to expect it to be most likely that promises or threats were made, which caused some nations not very friendly to America or to the equal rights of women to make contributions to her foundation.  Once again, one senses that transparency is greatly lacking on Hillary's relationship with these donator nations.  Her foundation is widely known to function as a sort of political slush fund, though it does also do some charitable work.  The foundation fits the pattern of being another tool to obscure her activities.

Now most recently we discovered that the reason that the House of Representatives and Judicial Watch could not get her e-mails relating to the Benghazi incident, is because she did not use the State Department e-mail account as she was required for conducting State Department business.  No, she used e-mail addresses operating off of a server in the basement of her home, as did some of her close assistants in the State Department.  Federal law requires that all government e-mails be maintained and preserved.  Hillary had her people examine her e-mails on one of the e-mail addresses operating out of her personal server and turn some set of them over to the State Department, many months after leaving the office.  This is a huge violation of the transparency requirement.  Those and who knows how many other e-mails she has not turned over should have long ago been examined by the State Department to find any that might be relevant to the Freedom of Information Act requests made by Judicial Watch and to the investigation of the House of Representatives.  This is a majority interference with the essential checks and balances We the People must maintain on our government to constrain its tendencies to tyranny and excess.

Hillary was well-aware that her actions were in violation of law and yet she did not step forward with her e-mails until she was caught.  I heard her friend Lanny Davis make the claim that she was not hiding her personal e-mail, because she had sent thousands of e-mails to thousands of people using it.  This does not mean that she was obeying the transparency requirements.  What it does imply is that the many people who were in government positions knew that she was violating the law by using her personal e-mail account for government business.  The extreme and total corruption of the Obama administration is evident in the fact that these people did not bring down an Inspector General investigation of her e-mail use while she was still serving as Secretary of State.  But while the Inspector General did not bother Hillary, nine investigations within the State Department did find that the law-violating use of private e-mails was widespread in the State Department and in many of our embassies around the world.  Such a violation was even used as a reason for sacking one ambassador during Hillary's tenure in the State Department.  But Hillary is always above the law!

As bad as Hillary Clinton's violation of transparency laws and court orders is, it may be even more disturbing that because she did not use the State Department e-mail, she had to have exposed many, many secrets to governments and groups unfriendly to the U.S. and opposed to individual rights.  It is already known that her home server system was not very secure with respect to hackers.  It was only a useful tool to deceive the American People, but not to hide classified State Department business from Qatar, North Korea, Iran, Russia, and China.  I expect many Americans do not understand how much State Department business is classified and do not understand how badly many other nations would want to see the Secretary of State's email and that of the people she corresponded with.  While there are many reasons that her tenure as Secretary of State was not a success, it may very well turn out that one of them was because many nations were hacking her insecure e-mail accounts.  [Ari Fleischer has also said that it is most likely the case that Russia, China, and Iran, among other nations, have read all of Hillary Clinton's e-mails, including everything about State Department business.  Update on 9 March 2015.]

Any thinking American should be horrified by the risk she put U.S. foreign policy and defense in with what for her was a political career convenience.  This was an extremely irresponsible act and one which surely violated the law.  She belongs in prison, not in a campaign to become the next President of the United States and the most powerful leader of the world's most powerful government.

But, who cares why Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans died in Benghazi and who cares if court orders were violated?  Who cares if an essential check on government power and corruption was violated?  Who cares if Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea were reading Hillary's e-mail and that of her correspondents about our foreign and defense policies?  We are about to test the American voter once again.  I hope they will not prove as unthinking as they were when they twice voted for Obama.  If they only prove a wee bit better thinkers, then Hillary Clinton is now toast.

For those of you who do care about why Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans died in Benghazi, Judicial Watch did recently obtain enough e-mails from a number of Hillary Clinton's top State Department aides and advisers to discover that they had immediately recognized that the attack was by a terrorist group.  They did not speculate in those e-mails that it was a "random" mob that was incensed by an obscure Internet video.  Given the strident and angry "Who cares" attitude of their boss, perhaps it is at least possible that they did not inform Hillary that the attack was a terrorist attack.  So which of these are part of the real story?
  • Hillary was unable to conclude from the evidence that the attack was a terrorist attack.
  • Her aides knew she would not be interested in the cause of the attack.
  • Her aides knew that she wanted plausible deniability for her ridiculous claim that a random mob was incensed by an obscure Internet video and spontaneously attacked the Consulate.
  • Her aides, knowing her famous furies, were afraid to tell her the real reason for the attack.
  • Hillary did know that the attack was by a terrorist group, but it was politically inconvenient to make that public with Obama's re-election campaign underway, so she lied about the cause.

Update on 11 March 2015:  Hillary Clinton destroyed 32,000 e-mails last year which she claimed were personal.  She refused to turn her home server over for any attempt to recover and check the disposed e-mails according to a report in the Washington Times.  We do not know how many other e-mails she has not turned over, but the timing of her destruction of e-mails would have allowed her to destroy the e-mails relating to the Benghazi incident.

10 January 2015

Congress Calls Itself Small Employer Under ObamaCare Law

The individual state and DC health insurance exchanges under the ObamaCare law allow small businesses with fewer than 50 "full-time" employees to purchase insurance for their employees on the exchanges.  The U.S. Congress purchases its health insurance under the DC health insurance exchange, which under the District of Columbia law setting it up has the ObamaCare law required limit on institutional entities that may use it of fewer than 50 full-time employees.  Under ObamaCare law, a full time employee is anyone working 30 or more hours a week.

According to the DC Health Benefit Exchange Authority, at least 12,359 employees or dependents of employees of Congress are receiving their health insurance plans from the DC Exchange.  Because they are receiving their benefits from the DC exchange, many are receiving the federal subsidies offered on state exchanges.  The House of Representatives attested under penalty of law that it had 45 employees.  The Senate made the same statement that it had 45 employees.  This was revealed by Judicial Watch when it obtained documents under the Freedom of Information Act.  The DC government has acknowledged that their purchases of insurance on the exchange are a breech of DC law, but has yet to do anything about it.

When the House of Representatives attested that it had 45 employees, it was under Republican control.  When the Senate made the same statement, it was under Democrat control.  Both parties engaged in patently illegal activity for the monetary gain of the 437 members of the House, the 100 Senators, and their thousands of staff employees.

These are the same reprobates who controlled the acquisition of $3.0 trillion of federal revenue in 2014, spending of $3.5 trillion, and the imposition of another $1.5 trillion in regulatory costs on the private sector in 2014.  It is insane to allow such lawbreakers and avaricious, unprincipled thieves have control of so much of the wealth produced by the hardworking taxpayers of the private sector.

They get away with this using the specious argument that they are correcting injustices of the private sector.  In fact, such injustices as there are in the private sector are mostly avoidable simply because individuals are free there to associate or not with others based on their own judgment of the fairness of their interactions.  None of us are allowed to disassociate ourselves from the government and its employees who very determinedly mistreat those of us in the private sector.  We are forced, yes forced, to submit to their myriad, complex, ubiquitous predations.  Congress and government bureaucrats spend every working hour studying and implementing ways to use their nearly unbridled power over us to their advantage and our subjugation.

The only answer to this predation is for the People to insist on the most principled and strict application of the Constitution to severely limit the actions of Congress and the federal government generally.  The size and scope of this out-of-control Big Government monster must be slashed until it performs only its legitimate role of protecting the equal, sovereign rights of the individual.