Obama asks Putin to remove Russian troops from Ukraine during long phone call

Obama asks Putin to remove Russian troops from Ukraine during long phone call

President Barack Obama asked Russian President Vladimir Putin on Saturday afternoon to return his troops to their barracks and to remove his forces from Ukraine.

However, Obama didn’t threaten or promise significant retaliation if Putin continued his advance into the majority-Russian parts of the Ukraine, according to a White House statement about their 90-minute phone call.

“If Russia has concerns about the treatment of ethnic Russian and minority populations in Ukraine, the appropriate way to address them is peacefully through direct engagement with the government of Ukraine and through the dispatch of international observers under the auspices of the United Nations,” Obama told Putin, according to the White House statement.

A continued advanced by Russia’s T-90 tanks, Mi-24 attack helicopters, BTR-90 troop carriers and paratroop battalions would “negatively impact Russia’s standing in the international community,” the statement threatened.

The U.S. “will urgently consult with allies and partners… suspend upcoming participation in preparatory meetings for the [upcoming] G-8” economic summit in southern Russia, the statement said.

The Russian intervention also may “lead to greater political and economic isolation,” the statement said.

Obama’s options in the crisis are few. His international credibility is weak, the U.S. economy is stalled, his poll ratings are low and the U.S. public does not want to get involved in a war with Russia.

The Saturday call and the statement came the same day that Obama symbolically washed his hands of Ukraine by having his deputies announce to the media that he had skipped a Saturday national security council meeting on the Russian invasion.

“The president’s national security team met today to receive an update on the situation in Ukraine and discuss potential policy options,” a White House official told reporters Saturday.

Obama didn’t attend the meeting, which was a few minutes walk away from his residence, but did get an status report from his national security advisor, Susan Rice.

Attendees at the meeting included the Secretary of Defense, the director of national intelligence and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Vice President Joe Biden also stayed away, but joined via by teleconference.

On Saturday, Russia’s parliament approved the use of force in the Ukraine, but it isn’t clear if Putin plans to advance beyond Crimea, or the majority-Russian districts in eastern Ukraine.

The signal of presidential priorities followed his actions on Friday, when he sandwiched a brief and vague presidential statement about the invasion between a previously scheduled exhibition of teenagers’ movies in the White House and a political rally at nearby hotel.

In his Friday statement, Obama threatened unnamed “costs” if Russia were to continue advancing in the Russian-majority eastern, Crimea and southern sections of Ukraine, an independent democracy of 46 million people that broke away from the Soviet Union 23 years ago, in 1991.

Immediately after the statement, he drove a short distance to the Democratic rally, which was held in a nearby hotel.

“Well, it’s Friday. It’s after 5:00,” Obama joked to Democratic supporters as he began a campaign-style rally. “So this is now officially happy hour with the Democratic Party. I can do that. It is an executive action. I have the authority.”

He did not mention Russia or the Ukraine in his speech, which portrayed progressive regulation of the economy as a foundation for personal freedom.

“Freedom is the peace of mind of knowing that if you got sick, you won’t lose everything,” he said. “Freedom is signing for that new home and knowing it can’t be taken from you because you actually understand what you’re signing…. [or] getting that new credit card and knowing the stakes and understanding how you’re going to manage it.”

Obama’s quick departure from the foreign policy problem to his campaign trail matches his decision in September 2012 to attend a fund-raiser in Las Vegas the day after jihadis killed four Americans — including an ambassador at a U.S. diplomatic compound inBenghazi, Libya.

Afterwards, Obama and his aides minimized the political damage from the attack by claiming the assault was provoked by a video critical of Islam that had been produced in California by a Egyptian immigrant.

Obama also quickly reversed himself after threatening to strike Russia’s ally, Syria, last fall following a chemical weapons attack.

Also, Obama quickly fled from the crisis in the former U.S. ally of Egypt, following the Egyptian military’s removal of the Muslim Brotherhood government in a July 2013 coup. Prior to the popular coup, Obama had sought to support the elected radical Islamic government.

On Saturday, Obama also spoke to the leaders in the Canada and France. They ”pledged to work together on a package of support and assistance to help Ukraine as it pursues reforms and stabilizes its economy,” said a White House statement.

The public’s trust in Obama’s handing of foreign policy is low.

But the rating is unlikely to shift votes in the November midterm election.

For example, a February poll by McClatchy-Marist of 1,197 adults showed that independents gives him 39 percent approval, 52 percent disapproval, rating on foreign policy.

Democrats give him a relatively poor 73 percent rating, and Republicans give him a 10 percent rating.

In recent weeks, Obama has used disputes over rights for gays in Russia to pump up his support among U.S. progressives. For example, he used an interview on the Jay Leno show to criticize Putin’s policy towards activists of rights for gays, and he sent several gay or lesbian athletes to represent the U.S. at the winter Olympics games in Sochi.

It is unclear if Obama will boost that issue, or let it slide, during the next few weeks.

The Saturday statement about the 90-minute conversation with Putin did not mention rights for gays.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/01/obama-asks-putin-to-remove-russian-troops-from-ukraine-during-long-phone-call/#ixzz2uq8nbUBL

Obamacare Forces Michigan Hospital To Cut Jobs

David Zechman, President and CEO of McLaren Northern Michigan hospital, says that Obamacare is to blame for the hospital’s newly announced layoffs and cuts.

Obamacare has increased patients’ deductibles, making it difficult for them to continue visiting their doctors.

McLaren Northern Michigan hospital’s budget was severely affected by lower federal reimbursement rates for Medicaid and Medicare services.

“We still have the same costs of taking care of patients, but it’s hard to keep doing the same things you’re doing if you paid less for the same amount of costs and services you provide- it’s just basic economics,” Zechman told WPBN.

He says it is hard to predict if there will be any more cuts or reductions in the future, but he would not be surprised if nearby hospitals were also forced to lay off their employees.

Ready For War: ‘Russia Will Never, Ever Give Up Crimea Without a Fight’

Ready For War: ‘Russia Will Never, Ever Give Up Crimea Without a Fight’

Editor’s Note: The back and forth struggle for territorial hegemony may soon be coming to a head on the Eastern Front. The west has ousted Kremlin-backed President Yanukovych and replaced him with a former central banker named Arseny Yatseniuk. While Europe and the United States say that the new President has been legally appointed by the people of the Ukraine, Yanukovych has publicly disagreed on Russian television, claiming that the appointment is “illegitimate.” For his part, Russian President Vladimir Putin has remained largely silent over the affair – at least overtly. Behind the scenes, however, the former KGB operative has mobilized tens of thousands of troops and re-positioned Russian military assets around Europe and even in our own backyard. For all intents and purposes, this build-up looks very much like a country preparing to go to war. Earlier this week national security adviser Susan Rice warned that Russian troop intervention in the Ukraine would be a “grave mistake,” and that the issue of Ukraine should be left to the people of that country. “This is not about the U.S. and Russia,” noted Rice. But with recent analysis suggesting that the U.S. played a role in February’s Ukranian revolution, it’s clear that this is exactly what it’s about.

Ukraine is said to be where Russian civilization began. That, coupled with the fact that the Carpathian Mountains are a key strategic defense barrier for invasion and that Russia has had a long-standing naval base in Crimea, one would be hard-pressed to believe that Vladimir Putin will simply let the Ukraine fall to western influence. In the article below Michael Snyder of The Economic Collapse highlights twelve key signs suggesting that it would be a grave mistake for us to ignore Russia’s determination to maintain control over the Ukraine and Crimea.

Has the fuse on the powder keg been lit?

12 Signs That Russia Is Ready To Fight A War Over Crimea

By Michael Snyder

Russia will never, ever give up Crimea without a fight. Anyone that thinks otherwise is just being delusional. TheRussian Black Sea fleet’s main base at Sevastopol is far too strategically important. In addition, ethnic Russians make up approximately 60 percent of the population of Crimea, and most of the population is rabidly pro-Russian. In fact, many prominent Crimean politicians are already calling for reunification with Russia. So if you have been thinking that Russia is just going to fold up shop and go home now that pro-European protesters have violently seized power in Kiev, you can quit holding your breath. The truth is that Russia is more than willing to fight a war over Crimea. And considering the fact that vitally important pipelines that pump natural gas from Russia to the rest of Europe go right through Ukraine, it is not likely that Russia will just willingly hand the rest of Ukraine over to the U.S. and the EU either. If the U.S. and the EU push too hard in Ukraine, a major regional war may erupt which could ultimately lead to something much larger.

Russia and Ukraine have very deep historical ties. Most Americans may not think that Ukraine is very important, but the Russians consider Ukraine to be of the utmost strategic importance.

As an American, how would you feel if another nation funded and organized the violent overthrow of the democratically-elected Canadian government and replaced it with a government that was virulently anti-American?

By doing this to Ukraine, the United States and the EU are essentially sticking a pin in Russia’s eye. Needless to say, Russia is extremely angry at this point and they are gearing up for war.

The following are 12 signs that Russia is ready to fight a war over Crimea…

#1 More Russian military vehicles continue to pour into Crimea. Just check out this video.

#2 Russian military vehicles have been photographed in the main square of Sevastopol.

#3 Russian military jets near the border with Ukraine have been put on combat alert.

#4 Russia has ordered “surprise military exercises” along the Ukrainian border.

#5 In connection with those “exercises”, it is being reported that Russia has deployed 150,000 troops along the border with Ukraine.

#6 Russia already has approximately 26,000 troops stationed at their naval base in Sevastopol.

#7 Russian ships carrying additional soldiers have been spotted off the coast of Crimea…

Russia’s large landing ship Nikolai Filchenkov has arrived near the Russia Black Sea Fleet’s base at Sevastopol, which Russia has leased from Ukraine since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.

The ship is reported to be carrying as many as 200 soldiers and has joined four additional ships carrying an unknown amount of Special Forces troops. Flot.com also reported over the weekend that personnel from the 45th Airborne Special Forces unit and additional divisions had been airlifted into Anapa, a city on Russia’s Black Sea coastline.

#8 Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu made the following statement to reporters on Wednesday…

“Measures are taken to guarantee the security of our facilities.”

#9 An unidentified Russian official has told the Financial Times that Russia is willing to use military force to protect Crimea…

Moscow earlier revealed that it would be ready to go for war over the Crimea region in order to protect the large population and army installations.

“If Ukraine breaks apart, it will trigger a war. They will lose Crimea first [because] we will go in and protect [it], just as we did in Georgia,” an unidentified Russian official told the Financial Times.

#10 Officials in Sevastopol have “installed” a Russian citizen as mayor of the city.

#11 Approximately 120 pro-Russian gunmen have seized the Crimean parliament building and have raised the Russian flag.

#12 There are rumors that Russian authorities have offered protection to ousted Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych…

Viktor F. Yanukovych, the ousted president of Ukraine, declared on Thursday that he remained the lawful president of the country and appealed to Russia to “secure my personal safety from the actions of extremists.” Russian news agencies reported that he had already arrived in Russia, but officials did not immediately confirm that.

No matter what the “new government” in Kiev says, and no matter how hard the U.S. and the EU push, Russia will never give up Crimea. The following is what a recent Debka article had to say about the matter…

There is no way that President Vladimir Putin will relinquish Russian control of the Crimean peninsula and its military bases there – or more particularly the big Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol. This military stronghold is the key to Russia’s Middle East policy. If it is imperiled, so too are Russia’s military posture in Syria and its strategic understandings with Iran.

And you know what?

The people of Crimea do not want Russia to leave either. In fact, they overwhelmingly want Russia to help defend them against the “new government” in Kiev.

As you read this, militia groups are being formed in Crimea to fight back against the “nationalist invasion” that they are anticipating. Just check out the following excerpt from a recent Time Magazine article…

Many of the people at the rally in Sevastopol were not just ready to believe. They were convinced of theimminent nationalist invasion. What scared them most were the right-wing political parties and militant groups that have played a role in Ukraine’s revolution. “What do you think they’re going to do with all those weapons they seized from police in Kiev? They’re going to come here and make war,” said Sergei Bochenko, who identified himself as the commander of a local militia group in Sevastopol called the Southern Russian Cossack Battalion.

In preparation, he said, his group of several hundred men had armed themselves with assault rifles and begun to train for battle. “There’s not a chance in hell we’re going to accept the rule of that fascist scum running around in Kiev with swastikas,” he said. That may be overstating the case. Nowhere in Ukraine has the uprising involved neo-Nazi groups, and no swastikas have appeared on the revolution’s insignia. But every one of the dozen or so people TIME spoke to in Sevastopol was certain that the revolt was run by fascists, most likely on the payroll of the U.S. State Department.

And just remember what happened back in 2008 in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The Russians have already shown that they are not afraid to militarily intervene in order to protect Russian citizens.

So what would the U.S. and the EU do if a war erupts between Russia and Ukraine?

Would they risk a direct military confrontation with Russia in order to help Ukraine?

I am very concerned about where all of this could be heading.

What about you?

What do you think?

Please feel free to share your thoughts by posting a comment below…

Michael T. Snyder is a graduate of the University of Florida law school and he worked as an attorney in the heart of Washington D.C. for a number of years. Today, Michael is best known for his work as the publisher of The Economic Collapse Blog and The American Dream. If you want to know what things in America are going to look like in a few years read his new book The Beginning of the End.

Read more at http://joeforamerica.com/2014/02/ready-war-russia-will-never-ever-give-crimea-without-fight/#M6XBBEcM7QoJBr1z.99

Videos: GOP Congressman Supports Amnesty To ‘Accomodate’ Illegal Aliens

A series of videos from several town halls in 2013 have surfaced showing that Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) supports amnesty for illegal aliens, despite claims from his re-election campaign that he is against allowing illegal aliens stay in America.

In the videos, Sessions frames his support for amnesty as granting legal status to illegal aliens who are not violent criminals—but somehow not citizenship, even though anyone who obtains a green card is allowed to eventually apply for citizenship. Sessions described such an amnesty as aiming to “accommodate” illegal aliens, “millions of people who are here for the right reasons.” He also said that he thinks “the vast majority of people who are here” as long as they are “here truly for the right reason,” should and “would be welcomed.”

“I believe that my colleagues in the House have on a sheet of paper designed a system that would accommodate millions of people who are here for the right reasons, millions of people who today may be illegal—illegally here—but who would be handled fairly under a process,” Sessions is seen saying on one video from 2013.

Sessions added:

“But we should not take those that are here who are dangerous who have committed serious crimes and to do like what the administration did when they released 2,000 people the first week of sequestration, of people who had committed felony offenses. We got to worry about trying to define these things and trying to separate—being here is one matter, being a criminal and dangerous to this country is another because if you come to this country legally you have to pass a background check and that background check is something that I believe is still difficult for some. But if you’re here truly for the right reason, I think the vast majority of people are here and they would be welcomed. I think we have to separate that fact from the rest.”

Much like how many other Republicans in House GOP leadership—and even Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) did when he was pushing the Senate “Gang of Eight” immigration bill—Sessions attempted later to argue that his support for granting legal status to illegal aliens is not “amnesty.”

At a different town hall event on a separate night, a woman asked Sessions about the Heritage Foundation study that found amnesty would add trillions to the national debt—specifically asking him: “I believe you stated you support amnesty for those illegal aliens who have passed a background check.”

Sessions denied having said what he is seen on video saying in the first town hall. “No ma’am,” he replied. “I don’t recall ever saying that. It’s not in my written literature and I have had a policy for [unintelligible] years, and that’s never been a part of it—my policy, writing or what I’ve said. So please strike that and I will tell you that is not true and incorrect, thank you.”

Even though he denied supporting amnesty in that second town hall, Sessions again publicly endorsed granting legal status—i.e., amnesty—to illegal aliens in an early 2014 editorial board interview with the Dallas Morning News. “Sessions backs a guest worker program under which those in the country illegally could keep their jobs and pay taxes but not obtain citizenship,” the paper wrote on Jan. 23 this year.

Sessions, who the New York Times describes as a “top lieutenant” of House Speaker John Boehner, served as the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), an official party arm used by the House GOP leadership to support candidates they want in Congress from 2008 until 2012.

He is now chairman of the powerful House Rules Committee. All legislation up for a vote on the House floor goes through the Rules Committee, putting him in a key position in deciding how any immigration bill would be considered.

These new videos were obtained by Breitbart Texas on Saturday evening, and add a new dynamic to the election that will happen in Texas next week. The immigration issue has gotten extra attention as of late in this race, as Sheriff Joe Arpaio pulled an endorsement of Katrina Pierson—a Tea Party activist challenging Sessions in the primary election, which takes place on Tuesday. Arpaio claimed that Pierson inaccurately told him that Sessions was pro-amnesty, and he has since learned Sessions actually opposes amnesty.

The Sessions campaign jumped on Arpaio’s announcement to take a shot at Pierson, and declare that the congressman does not support amnesty. “Ms. Pierson should be ashamed for misleading an individual of such great respect in the law enforcement community and as a national conservative leader,” Sessions campaign spokesman Bruce Harvie told the Dallas Morning News.

But these videos—and scores of data from anti-amnesty grassroots group NumbersUSA showing Sessions’ pro-amnesty positions over the past several years, and other developments like the January Dallas Morning News editorial board interview—prove otherwise: Sessions supports amnesty.

In response to a request for comment from Breitbart Texas, Sessions’ campaign spokesman Bruce Harvie said that “Pete is absolutely opposed to amnesty and he has worked hard to make sure we don’t give away legal status the way that Senate did.”

Harvie added that Sessions believes granting legal status to illegal aliens is not “amnesty.”

“Everyone with legal status isn’t necessarily a permanent resident,” Harvie said. “There are a number of visas, including work visas and seasonal visas that guarantee no legal status, or citizenship, in the future.”

Immigration hawks like Senate Budget Committee ranking member Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), not to be confused with the Congressman Pete Sessions who this article is about, have argued individuals who achieved”legal status” would easily be able to obtain citizenship.

“Any path that leads to a green card for someone who is currently ineligible for a green card because they violated U.S. immigration laws, such as the Senate bill, is a special path to citizenship,” Sen. Jeff Sessions wrote a Myth vs. Fact document earlier this year. “Like the Senate plan, the House plan provides legal status and work authorization first – the fundamental grant of amnesty,” he wrote.

Pierson, on the other hand, is a fierce fighter against amnesty. Last summer, she was one of only a few conservative leaders who rallied against the GOP establishment and Democrats’ immigration plans in Washington during the Black American Leadership Alliance’s March For Jobs. In response to these developments, she told Breitbart Texas that “Pete Sessions has admitted, on camera, that he supports legalizing millions of illegals.”

“That’s amnesty, whatever euphemism Sessions wants to apply to it,” Pierson said, adding that Boehner and Cantor are relying on him for any amnesty plays they plan to run in 2014 or beyond.

“As Rules Chair, Pete Sessions controls the floor of the House,” Pierson said. “What he supports goes forward to the House floor. What he opposes dies in Rules. An amnesty bill can only go forward with Pete Sessions’ support, so his position on amnesty is critical–and he’s on the wrong side.”

Pierson points to recent reports that House GOP leadership and Boehner plan to move on amnesty after GOP primaries as a concern grassroots conservatives should have this year.

Pierson has surged in recent weeks, especially after an endorsement from former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and from various national conservative organizations. What the GOP establishment both in Washington, D.C., and in Texas, thought was originally going to be a mild nuisance from Pierson against Sessions, who would cakewalk to re-election, is turning into a bitter battle at the last minute with establishment forces descending into the Dallas district to attack Pierson in the few days before the finish line. While it remains to be seen what will happen, Pierson might just pull this race off—or she might not. But either way, in the process, she has exposed Sessions for being a supporter of amnesty, and won other successes like putting the fear of God into Sessions and other GOP establishment lawmakers as they stumble—instead of glide—to election day.

“Primary campaigns against party leaders are often more of a nuisance than a serious threat, token challenges waged by local gadflies,” the New York Times wrote in a late February piece on GOP leadership officials’ primary challenges, a piece featuring Pierson. “But what is startling to Republicans this year is the sheer number of candidates who are willing to take on the party’s most powerful players in Washington, and the backing they are receiving from third-party groups.”

Gun Confiscati​on Hits U.S. East Coast

The State of Connecticut seems poised to be the first battleground of a new US Civil War as the state is using the Sandy Hook shooting hoax in an attempt to illegally take away the guns of law-abiding American citizens. With the 2nd Amendment and the US Constitution heavily under fire by Socialist politicians and law enforcement who are neglecting their oaths, will Connecticut soon turn into a literal battleground if and when Connecticut police attempt to illegally confiscate guns from Americans who KNOW that THEY are in the right while police and politicians are clearly on the WRONG side of the law and the US Constitution? Before It’s News does not condone violence of any kind but is a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment and the US Constitution.

The RINOS have declared war on the Tea Party, but brought a knife to a gun fight.

The RINOS have declared war on the Tea Party, but brought a knife to a gun fight.

(Tea Party) – When Ted Cruz was elected to office, the GOP establishment figured he was just another freshman they could haze and make accept the status quo. I’m sure they met with him and told him how things were done.

For years the establishment could control its members. They called themselves Ronald Reagan Republicans, but many of them forgot what President Reagan believed in. Their new creed was to acquiesce to the big bad democrats in hopes they would drop a few crumbs that will keep them relevant.

But Ted Cruz belonged to this group called the Tea Party, a group who pledged to uphold the constitution, limit government, and practice fiscal responsibility. I can imagine their faces when he looked them in the eyes and told them that he had a definitive responsibility to the constituents who elected him to office.

I’m sure the establishment brushed this off as aberration and considered him the crazy uncle that shows up to a family gathering. I mean, there is one of those in everyone’s family…right?

They saw their next target in sight, and he was black. He had to be a RINO! He ‘s a retired colonel in the United States Army, so he knows how to take orders and follow them. But when they approached him, his aura alone frightened the crap out of them.

One by one, they noticed a new breed of politician entering into their ranks. Politicians who’s sole purpose was to represent the people who elected them to office. This is when they began to wonder; who the HELL are the Tea Party?

The establishment thought they could continue to; “get up at twelve, start to work at one, take an hour for lunch and then at two they were done” but soon realized they were no longer in the land of Oz. The Tea Party movement would force the establishment to do their job and uphold their principles.

The Democrats saw the oncoming storm and attempted to invalidate the Tea Party movement by labeling them as racist and comparing them to the kkk. However, this tactic failed when the public saw they were comprised of the most diverse group of people.

When Ted Cruz filibustered the debt ceiling vote, Obama had enough of this pesky bunch of patriots. He ordered subordinate John Boehner to his office and demanded that he control these guard dogs of freedom. But Boehner conceded that this bunch of patriots could not be swayed. They were not going to be lead by the collar and told what to do.

Unlike the Obamacare fiasco, In order for the democrats to pass an amnesty bill they will have to battle the Tea Party Patriots. This premise angers the RINOS, so Democrats and the establishment colluded to destroy the Tea Party.

In an attempt to quel the Tea Party, RINOS and the democrats have been spinning rhetoric and blaming the tea party for everything under the sun, including global warming. Democratic senators are supporting the use of the IRS to target the Tea Party and calling for their first amendment rights to be stripped.

Karl Rove along with the GOP establishment have teamed up and created super pacs to target Tea Party candidates. In an effort to cut off the candidates chance of election/reelection, the establishment is warning donors not to support Tea Party candidates if they want access to senior republican leadership.

This is why the RINOS AND THEIR COLLABORATORS WILL FAIL. The Tea Party representatives are not alone. They are supported by millions of patriotic Americans who are willing to fight for their rights. We have had enough of the status quo.

So Karl Rove, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and the rest of the establishment – bring your daggers to the fight, but remember the warning candidate Obama said about patriots in 2008: we “cling to guns and religion”. We will not stand by and watch our country sink further into the abyss.

You are either with us or against us. We will come out in droves to vote the establishment out of office and replace them with representatives who will fight for our constitutional rights, and who will sacrifice their political popularity to uphold their moral values.

RINOS, You want a war? Bring it!

MichaelDozierMichael Dozier has served in the United States Army. He is a Physician’s Assistant and has worked at two level 1 trauma centers in Boston, Massachusetts. He has worked in humanitarian aid missions in Africa, Asia, the Balkans and America. Mr. Dozier conducts due diligence and Risk Analysis. He holds a PhD in Forensic Science. He currently works out of Bethel, Alaska and is the Director of Medical Incident Analyst for the United States Counter Intelligence Agency. He has completed advanced coursework, achieving multiple certifications in Criminal Profiling, Forensic Statement Analysis, Forensic Medicine, Advanced Intelligence Operations, Homeland Security, Emergency Management, and Disaster Preparedness.
– See more at: http://m.teaparty.org/rinos-declared-war-tea-party-brought-knife-gun-fight-35897/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=social#sthash.kSec6xVX.dpuf

Site says Obama stole election through voter fraud – National Elections

Site says Obama stole election through voter fraud - National Elections

During the election, Examiner’s Dean Chambers caused quite a stir when he talked about polls being skewed for Obama, something many conservatives reported. Now that the election is over, Chambers is focused on what he said is the reason for Obama’s victory. On Saturday, The Blaze reported that Chambers’ new site, barackofraudo.com, shows that Obama received 80 electoral votes in four states due largely to voter fraud.

“Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk,” the site says, quoting Henry David Thoreau.

“Evidence of vote fraud is very much like that,” Chambers wrote on the site.

“Those who engage in it are slick and do all they can to hide it, so the evidence is often quite circumstantial. In fact, often the circumstantial evidence is all the evidence we have, such was finding tens of thousands of bogus votes in the ballot box, we didn’t see someone actually put them there, but they are found, they are there, and they are clearly evidence of vote fraud,” he added. “Such is true of the voting divisions where Obama gets 100 percent of the votes cast. As if anyone REALLY believes that is legitimate.”

The Blaze reported that Chambers was mocked throughout the election for his site, UnSkewedPolls.com, where he attempted to, as Dave Weigel wrote at Slate, put “into numbers what other conservatives put into words.”

But according to Chambers, four states — Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Florida — should rightfully have gone to Romney, and would have were it not for voter fraud.

“I’m getting credible information of evidence in those states that there enough numbers that are questionable and could have swung the election,” he said, according to Weigel. “I’m only putting good credible information on there, like the actual vote counts, reports, and mainstream publications reporting voter fraud,” he added.

Chambers admits, however, that right now there is a lot of noise with very little substance.

“There’s a lot of chatter, though. There are articles people have sent me that don’t hold up. Crazy stuff,” he said.

“What’s not crazy?” Weigel asked.

“Things like the 59 voting divisions of Philadelphia where Romney received zero votes,” Chambers said. “Even Larry Sabato said that should be looked into.”

Weigel said that “57 precincts gave McCain no votes in 2008.”

“There’s such a thing as a 99% Democratic precinct, and such a thing as a 99% Republican precinct,” he added.

Chambers said that Ohio had irregularities that didn’t get much media attention.

“Some of the precincts or divisions in Cleveland were projected to be 99% Obama. That’s a part of the state where it’s known that a lot of ballot box scamming has been done in the past,” he said. “There were isolated reports of people voting for Romney and having votes changed, though they didn’t get much attention.”

Chambers also noted that Romney went from an 80,000 lead in Virginia to losing by 120,000.

“When votes were being counted on election night, 97% of the precincts were counted, and Romney was still leading 50-49,” he said. “When that remaining 3% were counted, a lead of 80,000 or so votes for Romney were turned into 120,000 for Obama.”

Mytheos Holt observed that there were areas “where Mitt Romney also got 100 percent of the votes cast.”

“Because of missed details like this, and his erroneous claim elsewhere that Virginia wasn’t called until Obama was leading, Chambers’ argument probably won’t face any success, or be taken with much seriousness by RNC leaders,” Holt added.

Even if there was overwhelming, incontrovertible evidence of voter fraud, Bob Unruh wrote at WND that the GOP would be powerless to stop it, thanks to a 1982 court case between the two parties.

According to Unruh, “a race-based consent decree negotiated by Democrats against the Republican National Committee a generation ago still has tied the RNC’s hands, and GOP officials could be cited for contempt – or worse – if they try to make sure American elections are clean.”